I've written here before about the subject of genetically modified foods and the corporate antics (and believe me, that's a kind word for it) surrounding it, and how argicultural giants like Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, DuPont and so on, were able to short circuit the regulatory process to introduce a variety of genetically modified crops and foods not only in this country but around the world.
For our purposes here, it behooves us to note that when genetically modified foods, growth hormones, and so on were first being proposed by various companies, the concern they had was the emerging scientific criticism from scientists not wholly bought off, that such foods and techniques needed to be thoroughly tested before being released for human consumption. The Republithugs, of course, were in power as all this was going down, and consistent with their mantra of "letting the markets decide," pushed the principle of "substantial equivalence" to allow such companies to market their products without the normal testing (since such products were "substantially equivalent" to the "engineering" of seeds through traditional agronomy), and to simultaneously patent their creation! There was, of course, little to no proper testing, and those who attempted to raise questions, or whose research actually challenged these assumptions, were brutally silenced as the scientific community was bought off.
Well, now the chickens are coming home to roost according to this post from Nature News:
The article is particularly helpful in that it identifies the favorite tactics in "studies" by governments and corporations to date, namely, that the actual test times for such studies are woefully short and inadequate. A mere 90 days on a diet of GMO foods, compared to consistent and long term consumption of them, brings different and disturbing results, with livery and kidney problems leading the pack. Additionally, as the article makes clear, insecticide toxins are found inside the soybeans or corn kernels that are consumed.
We get another glimpse into the shady "scientific" tactics of the corporations in these two paragraphs:
"When male and female animals have different results, for example, biotech advocates claim that this couldn't possibly be related to the feed. Since both genders eat the same amount, they argue, both would have to show the same reaction in all of their organs, etc. And if the group of animals fed with less of the GMO feed exhibit more severe reactions than the group fed the larger amount, advocates claim that this discrepancy also means that the GMOs could not be the cause, since there must always be a linear dose relationship.
"The authors of this paper, however, point out that effects found in a GMO animal feeding study 'cannot be disregarded on the rationale that it is not linear to the dose (or dose-related) or not comparable in genders. This would not be scientifically acceptable.' In fact, most 'pathological and endocrine effects in environmental health are not directly proportional to the dose, and they have a differential threshold of sensitivity in both sexes. This is, for instance, the case with carcinogenesis and endocrine disruption.'"
Of course, one may extrapolate from this that the corporations could care less about human life, only about their bottom line. But it makes me wonder... given the stated goal of so many elites that we have to have "population reduction", what better way than to poison the food with "intellectual property" that the very victims have to pay for? It would, it seems to me, fit the "mentality" and "morality" of those people quite well.