New Publication
Homeopathy in Intensive Care
and Emergency Medicine
Homeopathy First Magazine
Best Vitamin C Drink 
Learn More With Caralyn 


Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness

GMO Labeling — No Go Spin To Appease Consumers With No Scientific Evidence

GMO Labeling — No Go Spin To Appease Consumers With No Scientific Evidence

Who writes this spin? You may exchange "spin" for another four-letter word that begins with "S." Some huge organizations must have gotten together to write an article or paid a professional copy editor to find every way to twist and turn the truth in such a way that people would be blinded by the darkness. Instead, let's keep turning up the light! Let's demand the TRUTH, FACTS, and FREEDOM of INFORMATION. Isn't that what a true democracy and our constitution provides?

62 World Countries Require GMO Labeling

Why are these organizations trying so damn hard to cover up and hide any labeling information in America? They have an ulterior motive, which they have actually come out into the open to say that consumers would begin to question the foods they select to put on their plates. Well, its about time! Finally, we are a sick nation and there is a reason for that. Our bodies do not like anything artificial, non-foods and anything they cannot identify. Living organisms evolved over millennia with their environment and suddenly making genetic changes cannot be adapted to well without functional disruption. We can all be independent investigative reporters and delve into the meat of the matter. 

Laws Require Labeling Of Ingredients On The Sale of Mattresses, So Why Not Food?

State-by-state, consumers demand to know their food source, the manufacturing, packaging, transportation and delivery practices. This is part and parcel of the safety and quality of the food. When a truck carries oil, grain, milk, juice or other product, we should know. All kosher products state whether it is parve, milk or meat; or whether the plant processed peanuts, legumes, wheat, or other grains that may cause sensitivities to individuals. 

Give The People The Benefit Of The Doubt. Treat Us Like Adults Who Can Make Personal Life Decisions

Thus, we have a right to know if a food is a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)  or Genetically Engineered (GE) or Organic, or some other method of production. Let each and every person determine for them self whether they feel this information is "useful" or "not useful." Why should some other authority take away this right or dominate our ability to use our own intelligence? What the heck! Can you imagine a reverse warning label telling consumers that the NON-GMO label is not useful?! is this the same as a cigarette warning label telling people that nicotine and other noxious substances are harmful to health? What, in truth, rests behind the devious labeling proposal?

  • The proposed state law (NY) to require labeling of foods made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should carry a disclaimer of its own:
  • “Warning: This legislation will not actually provide consumers with useful information.”

Uncalled For Name Calling Practices As Typical Practice To Sway Reader

What exactly does it mean to "pander" or "accommodate" or "yield" the needs of consumers, especially those sensitive to particular substances? Why are such contrary "labels" given to people who want the truth in labeling?

Patronizing name calling, such as "technophobic" tries to spin these concerned consumers into outsiders or crazy nerds. Whereas, the government has no problem to determine other warnings and labels when it affects minority groups. They attempt to say that people do not have legitimate concerns about their food.

In addition, they label and "group" people by crossing over from learning about what foods they want to put into their mouths, with the very, very small numbers of people who have concerns about vaccinating their tiny defenseless children with tons of vaccines that have not been thoroughly tested, or rushed to market, or compared the health to groups of non-vaccinated children. In fact, they tell us outright that the groups most concerned are the educated "intelligent" parents who have done their homework and research into these matters. What makes the most sense to you as a literate person? Without any actual science, a blanket statement that there is a resurgence of disease, does not tell the entire story about ineffectual vaccines, multiple vaccines, and the development of disease resistance

  • What it will do is pander to technophobia about “frankenfoods” that too often gets in the way of smart decision-making.
  • Much the same impulse scares otherwise intelligent parents away from vaccinating their children, leading to a resurgence of diseases that should be completely preventable.

True Science Involves Observation and Investigation Of All Data

People have been doing their own investigation into food manufacturing. Why can't we shine a light in these areas that need supervision and observation? Why work so hard to turn our heads in a different direction or cover our eyes so we can't see the truth? What is the actual "distraction?" The distraction from looking decisively at the science, the outcomes from laboratory results, the cancers and other adverse effects. Who's to determine what facts really matter? As a matter of fact, every food has information about sugar content and all types of fats, calorie content, cholesterol, added preservatives and added vitamins, etc.

It has not been conclusively determined the health effects of GMO in the short and long term. However, many scientific anecdotal observations indicate that GMO traits, as BT toxin, herbicide resistance, and the increase of ecological effects and human morbidity. (purdue) Lies and more lies.

  • Putting a focus on GMOs would also distract consumers from factors that really matter when it comes to shopping for food — such as avoiding too much saturated fat and sugar. The debilitating and deadly effects of those ingredients have been well documented by research — while just the opposite is true of GMOs.

  • Seralini Long Term Studies

“History shows that where ethics and economics come in conflict, victory is always with economics. Vested interests have never been known to have willingly divested themselves unless there was sufficient force to compel them.”  B. R. Ambedkar quotes

We must be vigilant to understand organizational, governmental and industrial ties. Some quotes may easily be taken out of context to support a position. Monsanto is one of the greatest financial contributors to the AAAS. Can you see any conflict of interest? On pure ethical grounds, we must question the conclusions stated by this author. 

  • Here’s what the nation’s largest general science organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, had to say when California considered a labeling law in 2012:
  • “The science is quite clear: Crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”
  • Also weighing in was the American Medical Association: “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class.”
  • A 2011 report from the European Union — covering 130 research projects over 25 years — concluded that GMOs “are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”

Who are the real fear mongers? Who is deliberately attempting to use deception against a vast population?  When individuals learn about the scientific data and question the results of the research; and read the news reports about the devastation of honey bees and monarch butterflies, etc, who are those deliberately trying to twist the truth?

Humans may have been using paint brushes to hybridize new fruits and vegetables in ways that nature might herself produce when given the chance. Manipulating genomes through the implantation of cross species is against the will of the creator and against nature. This could not possibly happen outside of a laboratory. The use of these GMO developed monocultures crops has lead to the demise of soil organisms and the hierarchy of the animal kingdom as we know it. Always remember, we live in a "complex adaptive system" where so many factors interrelate we do not even have all the knowledge to base our actions on solid ground. One tweak of a gene, may cause devastation and death in many species without our knowledge. However, already, we have seen this happen in both the plant and animal kingdoms.

The Asian countries and people have all rejected the use of "yellow rice" exactly because it does not look nor taste like the authentic ancient strains used for millennia. It's obviously not "the same."

  • Here’s what fearmongers fail to understand: Humans have been manipulating the genomes of plants and animals since literally the dawn of civilization — through cross-breeding that has produced modern varieties of wheat, corn, soybeans, etc., that look and taste nothing like their ancient forebears.

  • The modern technological leap is to directly transplant genetic material from one species to another — often with highly useful results. It’s not fundamentally different from the techniques used to create life-saving vaccines and cutting-edge medicines.

  • Among the crops engineered are varieties of corn carrying a bacteria gene that produces a natural insecticide. It’s nontoxic to humans and other mammals, yet allows farmers to dramatically reduce or eliminate spraying for bugs.

  • Food engineers have also come up with a type of rice that’s high in beta carotene — which could help prevent Vitamin A deficiencies that blind and kill hundreds of thousands of children a year.

Most unfortunately, our FDA has failed us. They rush products to market and the chairman of the FDA was the former president and CEO of Monsanto, the largest purveyor of GMO crops. Do we see another conflict of interest? Why does the public not get to "see" all the reports and data from these extensive trials? They have protection under PATENT LAWS and hide under the guise of PROPRIETARY PROPERTY. Even the Union of Concerned Scientist has put forth a document indicating the troubled state of the FDA and demanding independent science and testing to drive decision making.  

Again, unfortunately, the ubiquitous nature that has scammed the American people and those purchasing GMO foods from the USA have opened Pandora's Box to untold adverse effects.

The latest controversy. As of this writing GMO Wheat is illegal in the USA. However, farmers are finding roundup resistant wheat strains in their fields. How did it get there? Pollen from experimental trials which can travel hundreds of miles have contaminated native wheat strains and now are ramifying themselves in the food chain. "Monsanto has been in the news simultaneously for its unapproved glyphosate tolerant GM wheat that has turned up in a farmer’s field in Oregon; and Japan and then South Korea suspended their wheat imports for fear of GM contamination, leading to a 4% drop in Monsanto’s shares [5]. The shipments were eventually cancelled, which could cost US farmers billions."

  • They’re also ubiquitous — accounting for some 90% of all field corn and soybeans grown in the U.S., according to Margaret Smith, a plant breeding and genetics professor at Cornell University. Meaning that if GMO labels becomes mandatory in New York, they’ll go on the vast majority of boxes and cans on grocery shelves.

When we cannot even tell one item from another, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Just because a laboratory observation cannot tell the difference between a natural product and a synthetic artificial product does not mean that the innate living organism cannot tell a difference. Chemically these foods may appear the same, but on a deeper genetic level, they are absolutely manifestly not the same. How many people who take a brand name drug have a problem when taking a generic drug that is the same exact chemical composition. Let's ask this question. Have you heard of fool's gold? 

By definition if you are using BT corn to make corn flakes it is different in its genetic and chemical composition, as compared to natural strains of corn. And the same for soybeans and sugar beets. 

  • And, as Smith points out, the process of extracting corn starch, corn syrup and soybean oil strips out any and all genes and genetic byproducts: “So there’s no way to test a corn starch, for example, and tell whether it came from a genetically engineered corn or not.”

  • So the breakfast cereal made with ingredients that started as GMOs — which would be required to carry a label — would be chemically indistinguishable from competing products that do not.

The author failed to report that every single cell in the GMO corn plant contains BT toxin. Everything you are eating! Do we understand the long term effects of humans and other species eating bacterial toxins daily in their food supply? In fact, David Suzuki tells us that the plant cannot turn this substance or genetic factor on and off, as it would normally in nature change its chemical expressions toward insects. Scientists have absolutely NO IDEA what the long term effect of these genetic modifications would do to the human digestive tract or any other organ or tissue.

More lies about the reduction in harmful pesticide use when developing GMO crops circulate in industrial literature. The consumers are asking for all information about food production, including insecticide, pesticide and fungicide and herbicide usage. Families have been recording adverse events like allergies and auto-immune disorders after eating these GMO foods. 

  • Also, bug-resistant sweet corn raised with reduced spraying would have to be labeled, while non-GMO fruits and vegetables thoroughly doused in chemicals would not. Makes no sense.

  • Huffington Round Up Resistance

  • U.S. farmers are using more hazardous pesticides to fight weeds and insects due largely to heavy adoption of genetically modified crop technologies that are sparking a rise of "superweeds" and hard-to-kill insects, according to a newly released study. 

  • Reuters USA Study on Pesticides

  • Pandering: The third-generation Iowa farmer questioned the agricultural giant's peddler about his merchandise -- a new seed genetically engineered to withstand Monsanto's own Roundup brand herbicide. "Down the road, are we going to experience resistance in weeds with the continued use of Roundup?" he recalls asking.  He remembers, too, the response: "Oh no, that'll never happen." In only 15 years, we see the rise in superbugs and super weeds that are resistant to the pesticides.

It has been a drawn out battle for the truth in labeling, with the heavy weights like Monsanto and Dupont pouring millions into the marketing campaign to prevent consumers from reading the facts on the label and making personal decisions. How many decades have these companies been developing, testing, growing and serving these GMO foods without the public's knowledge and consent? Now is the time. The cat is out of the bag. She's scouting around and sniffing out the mice. Now, consumers must be wary of any kind of "disclaimers" or deceptive package labeling to appease the uninformed. If we read GMO-free or Non-GMO does this also mean organic or pesticide, herbicide, or insecticide free?  

Ancient rabbinic laws have been changed in societies and cultures when the majority of people have rallied and asked for leniency in certain matters. However, in other areas the structure of universal truth cannot be bent. In this case, the people are simply asking for information. That's it. Nothing more. They do not want to be deceived or feel that the government does not have their best interest in mind. We live in an era when our systems have failed to protect our rights and health. We live in a times when drug recalls, medical and scientific conclusions change almost on a daily basis, and when dietary recommendations have suddenly shifted our thinking. In order to preserve some trust in our government there is absolute no way the laws can take away our right to know.

  • The bottom-line rallying call of labeling supporters is that consumers have a right to know.
  • “It’s just information — and information is what people say they want,” says the bill’s Assembly sponsor, Linda Rosenthal of Manhattan.
  • But nothing now prevents GMO-free products from advertising that fact, as the makers of Cheerios have started doing. And consumers who care can always look for the “certified organic” label — which already rules out GMOs, for better or worse.
  • With polls showing that 92% of Americans support labeling laws, supporters like Rosenthal think they’re giving the people what they want. But they should not kid themselves: They are serving up nothing but empty calories.

The author of the daily news article did not even mention that virtually every western nation in the world requires GMO Labeling including Canada, Australia, the European Union and Eastern European countries. And, these countries are burning GMO crops and turning them off their shores. Indeed, the nation with the largest population, China, and second highest population, India, bans all GMO crops and foods products. We lag far behind if we can't even label the products to differentiate them from natural or organic foods. What's taking us so long? We should have taken care of truth in labeling issues and banning GMO many years ago. 

Views: 379

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Very good written material. Thank you Debby!

Excellent  material, Debby : CONGRATS !  Please keep  on sharing...  Thank YOU!!!


HWC Partners


© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...