THE GMO SCRAPBOOK: FORMER BIOTECH SCIENTIST GMO SUPPORTER DOES ABOUT ...November 17, 2014
Yesterday I wrote about the GMO ban in Maui county of Hawaii, and about the GMO "industry's" entirely predictable response. And at the risk of wearing out this subject, I want to talk about it again, and to reassert some points I've made on this website before with respect to this issue, because they bear repeating again.
Dr. Thierry Vrain, a biotech scientist, and former supporter of GMOs and all their wonders, has now come out and completely repudiated his former support - and the "science" behind that support - of GMOs:
I first want to draw your attention to this particular passage in the article:
"Vrain thinks the public is being swindled. He believes we should all demand that government agencies replicate tests showing that GMOs are safe rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies. He continues:
“The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.
There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.
These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.”
"This science is actually only about 40 years old. It is all based on a theory of genetic manipulation hypothesized around 70 years ago – of the ONE GENE – meaning that each gene codes for one single protein. The Human Genome project proved this totally wrong." (Boldface emphasis added)
And there's the rub: in the USA and Canada at least (we might to some extent include Australia here), no real independent government testing has been done at the bought-and-paid-for corrupt federal level; the independent science is not independent at all. If anything, the independent studies have been done at the state level, at places such as the University of Iowa; and that is why, as I blogged yesterday, opposition to GMOs and to companies and corporate "practices" of such morally bankrupt entities as Mon(ster)santo is occurring at a local level, and has begun to shift from "labeling" laws to outright moratoriums on GMO planting and testing.
But there's an even more important thing going on here, one suggested by comments at the beginning of the article, and raising the issue I have attempted to raise before, and which I do here again, in hopes that people understand the insane irrationality of any study - pro or con - to have settled the issue:
"Monsanto openly admits “after 30” whole “years of research” that they are convinced GMOs are safe. Just one type of pine tree lives more than 5000 years, but yea – Monsanto has all of Mother Nature figured out in its 30 years of tinkering with genes."
In other words, there has not and never been any real long term intergenerational study of GMO effects on the environment, and on animal and human health. The claim is made that a mere thirty years of study is sufficient; and that, of course, in the face of millennia of agronomical practice and the careful selection of traits in seeds over several generations, is nonsense. At root, the claims of "scientific GMO safety" is a form of hubris, a hubris bought and paid for by corporate money and - calling a spade a spade - bribed government officials. The preponderance of reason would thus seem to have demanded that, whatever the science or its conclusions, a moratorium on wide spread GMO cultivation should have been maintained for at least three generations, if not longer. And there can be no corporate side-stepping of this issue: they knew they were playing with animal and human life itself, and in pursuit of their "bottom line," simply didn't, and don't, care.
Oh, and that honey bee colony collapse thing? Well,even though bees are essential to the pollination of plants of all types, and hence, essential to food cycles on earth, they don't care about that either:
And one more thing: the contamination is now so widespread that it may be unstoppable:
Maybe it's time for a class action, international lawsuit in every country against these companies, to be brought by the very governments they have tried buy, for damages against nature, crops, and crimes against humanity, because as I stated before, these companies are not for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe it's time to test the "science" before a jury, because labeling laws are a distraction from the real danger, the danger to life and the environment.
See you on the flip side...
(My thanks to all of you who shared these important articles).