Transhumanist

GMOS IN THE NEWS AGAIN: EUROPEAN SCIENTISTS QUESTIONING THE WHOLE ...

Many of you sent me this one, and given the financial and geopolitical context of the previous few day's blogs, I believe this story is significant both in its own right, and significant in terms of the wider context in which I think it should be viewed. Consider this article, and its signatories:

No scientific consensus on GMO safety (See also Global Scientists Issue Stunning GMO Safety Warning)

1 First signatories to the statement “No scientific consensus on GMO safety”

The article confirms what most of us has known all along: the calm reassurances from corporate scientists and bought-and-paid-for government agencies on the safety of GMOs was another example of how big money corrupts science and perverts it, and in the process, damages the reputation of science itself, and those are the hidden implications spelled out in rather more lengthy and academic fashion in these statements:

The statement comes in response to recent claims from the GM industry and some scientists, journalists, and commentators that there is a “scientific consensus” that GM foods and crops were generally found safe for human and animal health and the environment. The statement calls these claims “misleading”, adding, “This claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.”

“Such claims may place human and environmental health at undue risk and create an atmosphere of complacency,” states Dr. Angelika Hilbeck, chairperson of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) and one of the signatories. “The statement draws attention to the diversity of opinion over GMOs in the scientific community and the often contradictory or inconclusive findings of studies on GMO safety. These include toxic effects on laboratory animals fed GM foods, increased pesticide use from GM crop cultivation, and the unexpected impacts of Bt insecticidal crops on beneficial and non-target organisms,” Dr Hilbeck continues.

In spite of this nuanced and complex picture, a group of like-minded people makes sweeping claims that GM crops and foods are safe. In reality, many unanswered questions remain and in some cases there is serious cause for concern.

Prof C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster and a signatory to the statement, said: “A substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic. It is often claimed that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects. But as the US has no GMO labeling and no epidemiological studies have been carried out, there is no way of knowing whether the rising rates of chronic diseases seen in that country have anything to do with GM food consumption or not. Therefore this claim has no scientific basis.”

This much would seem evident. Indeed, as my co-author Dr. Scott D de Hart and I argued in our book Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas, common sense alone would have dictated careful study of the effects of GMOs over generations both of plants, environmental impact, and humans, and this was simply not done. The result? "The claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist" precisely because "...the US has no GMO labeling and no epidemiological studies have been carried out, there is no way of knowing whether the rising rates of chronic diseases seen in that country have anything to do with GM food consumption or not. Therefore this claim has no scientific basis.”

Bingo.

But that statement also calls into question the reason that there are quiet noises in the pro-GMO community for labeling, for such a move would allow a pernicious kind of "human studies" research project to be conducted by the public, and to the risk of the public, at little to no cost to the companies now rethinking their opposition to labeling.

But there is a wider geopolitical context here, and it is, I suggest, that of the gradual though inevitable realignment now underway, that alignment which will see the tiny cracks between the US-European alliance grow into fissures, and eventually into fully-fledged fault lines.  The opposition to GMOs has come chiefly from European countries, Latin America, and certain nations, notably India - itself a BRICSA member - and the reason is clear.

Dr de Hart and I pointed out that the idea of GMOs came from the American corporate sector as a means for dominating the world's food supply, and agricultural land, by means of patent law, but the scheme would work only so long as natural seeds could be driven out of the market. It was, blatantly, the cartelization of agriculture in the hands of a few companies, mostly American, and the agenda all along was geopolitical in nature. For the GMO effort to proceed apace in Europe would have ultimately spelled the end to European sovereignties, and have constituted a vice grip on the European Union from which it would have been difficult to extricate itself.

But the extrication is well under way, and all that remains is for Europe and the BRICSA nations to insist that their non-GMO products have access to Latin American and North American markets...

And if you don't think that's coming, think again:

Mexico Bans GMO Corn, Effective Immediately

See you on the flip side.

15 thoughts on “ GMOS IN THE NEWS AGAIN: EUROPEAN SCIENTISTS QUESTIONING THE WHOLE ...”

  1. The process of using food ot dominate the world started back with hybridized grains, and has used a process of “intellectual property rights” of various kinds, whether patens or trademakrs, etc., to try and create dependencies around the world.

    There is a recent book, “Wheat Belly,” which describes how even hybridized wheat was never tested for safety before it was marketed, how the process of hybridizing changed hundreds, if not thousands, of proteins in wheat, and has been implicated in the massive increase in gluten sensitivity and grain-based health problems.

    Well worth reading.

  2. Arrrggh! Opinions, opinion, opinions, & zero facts. Here are some tools :

    GMO gene-perving can countermanded using methods developed by
    Guido EBNER, called “Primeval Code” — essentially, using electrostatic fields & frequencies, waveforms, &c… to cause plants & animals to revert to earlier, primitive forms. He did the R&D at CIBA-Geigy, which corp. promptly suppressed the technology. The well-known method of gene-transfer via microwaves, developed by Gajarev, et al., also applies…

    Complete info ( articles, patents ) : rexresearchdotcom/ebner/ebner.htm

    re : Fukushima : There are several proven methods to reduce /eliminate nuke radiation. They are all represented in one place online :

    rexresearchdotcom/fukushimamour/fukushima.htm

    Or, do sweet fornicate-all & die off… it don’t make no never mind to me, ’cause I’m already a boddhisatva / descended master / asshole…

  3. Let’s roll out the guillotines and start cleaning off the cream of the oligarchy’s power base heads(written in a joking manner, in possible solution to criminal punishment). Max Keiser says it jokingly(?) on his show at times; capital punishment for capital crimes, and references blowing the dust off those guillotines. Saying, I’ll believe in a corporations as people, when one is executed in Texas. China executes the criminal banksters, and other high collar crimes. The oligarchies control the foods, the moneies, the energies, ect. It’s time to clean these vipers out worldwide. The real war on terror; the terror of the ruling oligarchies.

  4. The effort against GMOs is too little and already too late. Too late because, as Monsanto’s lawyers have shown, their genes have already perniciously invaded many other places. Any farmer or anyone with high school biology could have seen that coming, as of course Monsanto did. Trust a corporation to exploit widespread scientific ignorance to add to their corporate coffers!

    Why are we bothering with labeling when we should be demanding a complete halt to GMOs in our food supply, and charging Monsanto, et al, to rid the environment of all vestiges of them? Oh, I forgot, we “have” to allow corporations to make money. Why? Why is business given such preferential treatment when it does at least as much damage to people as it does good? It would be nice to have the power to throw out that paradigm.

  5. if my read/heard sources are correct, not only is Europe fighting GMOs but has consistently fought the fluoridation of water; again, if my sources are correct, the only central European country that flouridates its water is…..Switzerland (no wonder rigid Swiss society is so “fornicated up”); if anyone has any info to the contrary please inform-

    Larry in SW Germany

  6. The objections of public opinion (if there is any such thing) pale in stark contrast to outright signaling by established geoeconomic and geopolitical entities in the midst of an ongoing and intensifying cultural chess match.

    In other words, this issue is NOT simpler than some “great break”—the emergent international economic divergence from and political backlash against Western unipolarity IS, ipso facto, a “great break.”

    This is not simply an issue of health and nutrition and preferential palates, because even from the outset, as Dr. Farrell points out, the GMO initiative was never about food.

  7. It’s simpler than some great break between Europe and the US.

    In western continental Europe, so France, Spain, Italy, and even Germany and Switzerland (this also applies to places like Japan and South Korea), people will not tolerate eating the crap food that the US (and UK) tolerated for years. Average people in those places, and others not listed like Greece or Hungary, spend more money and time and care good bit more about consuming higher quality food than is average in the US. In say Spain someone who substituted canola oil for extra virgin olive oil would be laughed at–both for reasons of taste and nutrition.

    But in the US the products of General Mills, Kraft, etc are considered acceptable food by many.

    And before I read about the popularity of McDonald’s in say Italy or France; the food is still horrid and every one knows that; it’s that McDonald’s affords one a place to sit down inexpensively in the middle of say Paris or Rome–where tables cost extra money to occupy. And one can drink beer.

    Yes there are plenty of people in the US who seek out higher quality food, they’re not won over to GMO based foods either. It’s that in the US there are many who think that Betty Crocker is how one makes a cake, or margarine is nearly the same as butter, or Hershey’s is good chocolate, and in Europe no one defends those things (er foodstuffs).

    Kraft and General Mills are just two easy examples, in western Europe processed foods like beacon and cheese are made to a much higher average standard.

    So Europe objecting to US food tech is not new, nor unjustified.

    1. human beings are the only creatures on this planet who are STUPID enough to eat fast-food products- no animal will touch them-

      just as an aside (and speaking of firms like Kraft, Betty Crackpot, etc.), a stage director with whom I’ve many times worked had worked previously (before he began to desecrate opera) told me he worked for a short period of time at German Kelloggs based in Bremen; he told me you can’t believe how much crap that should’t be there falls into the packagings which are subsequently sealed, boxed and then shipped out to grocery shelves- he stated he’ll never eat a Kelloggs product again

      1. addendum- sorry, forgot to state that all Swiss chocolate manufacturers (if my sources are correct) such as Lindt, Suchard, Caillier, etc. now use genetically modified cocoa beans- so not every European business opposes GMOs- but then Switzerland is an anomaly unto itself

        1. I never claimed that European firms like Lindt would never use GMO food stuffs.

          Nestle sells all sorts of garbage.

          Just pointing out on average, Kraft and its ilk aren’t considered food in Europe.

          Careful: The problem isn’t exactly “fast food”; it’s how it’s made.

Comments are closed.