GMOs

“SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE” ON STEROIDS

April 12, 2018 By Joseph P. Farrell

Mr. A.F. saw this article on the next step in the ongoing GMO crime syndicate's gallant struggle against clear thinking and non-corporate science, and I have to talk about this one, because it's by our friend and colleague Jon Rappoport:

The next huge GMO crime is here

So why am I bothering to call this review of Mr. Rappoport's article "substantial equivalence on steroids"? Well, go back for a moment to Dr. Scott deHart's and my book, Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas. In that book, we noted not only the overall resemblance of transhumanism to the old alchemical agenda of "transforming man", but that one of the ways this was to be achieved was through food, the "frankenfoods" of GMOs. Digging into the subject, we quickly came across Mr. F. William Engdahl's book Seeds of Destruction, in which he detailed the doctrine of "substantial equivalence". This was the doctrine concocted by the agribusiness giants to argue that, since GMO corn was "substantially" the same as non-GMO corn, that no special long-term studies of human or environmental impact needed to be done, since the verdict, so to speak, was already in; since GMO corn looked like ordinary corn and tasted like ordinary corn, so in effect, it was corn and could be treated as such. Except, of course, when it came to the idea of patents and royalties, in which case, it wasn't ordinary corn any more, but had magically transubstantiated into something else, but retained all the accidents of ordinary corn. One can almost hear the medieval scholastics arguing this case to the Food and Drug Administration: "By substantial equivalence, we mean the bundle of cornish accidents in which the substantial corn is, for the purposes of regulation and testing, but since the cornish accidents themselves are of private confecture and not owing to the substance of corn sub specie naturae, we hold that a rent is due on the accidents, and not the substance of the corn."

Boy, the Fourth Lateran Council had nothing on these people.

So, with that little transubstantiatory background in mind, consider the latest "update" on the theory of "substantial equivalence" and the flaw in the doctrine as reported by Mr. Rappoport:

We’re on the cusp of a new level of GMO crime-business, and the man in charge of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Sonny Perdue, is cheerleading from the sidelines.

Perdue says the newest gene-edited plants won’t be any different from those developed by traditional non-GMO breeding methods.

Which is like saying a missile fired from a tank is identical to an arrow shot from a bow.

Here is the brand new policy from the USDA: “Under its biotechnology regulations, USDA does not regulate or have any plans to regulate plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques…This includes a set of new [gene-editing] techniques that are increasingly being used by plant breeders to produce new plant varieties that are indistinguishable from those developed through traditional breeding methods.”

Yes, indistinguishable, if you’re wearing a blindfold and wandering around in a pitch-black lab.

Yup... "indistinguishable" simply means that the same old doctrine of substantial equivalence is still in effect, and is being actively extended to include technologies not in evidence when the doctrine was first proposed. The USDA's statement is basically informing us that its ordinary magisterium has already pronounced on the matter and traditional agronomical means of breeding characteristics into or out of plants are "indistinguishable" (and therefore, substantially equivalent) to methods of direct genetic alteration and engineering.  And of course, that is precisely what is in play:

Claire Robinson, the relentless and sharp publisher of gmwatch.org, goes for the throat:

“If by some miracle the USDA should turn out to be correct when it claims that genome-edited plants are indistinguishable from naturally bred plants, then the whole genome-editing commercial venture is over. That’s because the driving force behind all genetic engineering of plants, including genome editing, is patents. And to get a patent on a genome-edited plant you have to show that it is a man-made invention that is completely different from anything that you might find in nature.”

“Therefore the GMO industry is telling the public and regulators that genome-edited plants are indistinguishable from naturally bred plants, and yet at the same time it is telling patent offices that genome-edited plants are completely different from naturally bred plants.”

“Both claims cannot be true. So one is a lie. There are no prizes for guessing which one.”

But Mr. Rappoport has seen yet another implication here that few others have. Ponder this insight very carefully:

To grasp this situation at ground level, imagine a bevy of food police came into your house and said: “We’re going to take all the food out of your refrigerator, we’re going to fool around with the genes, not really knowing what changes are occurring as we cut and paste, having no idea how this will affect your health, and then we’ll come back and put the gene-edited food in the fridge. Don’t worry, be happy.”

If this new generation of edited food is accepted by a sleeping public, there is yet another step coming on the road to full food control. We’ve seen hints of it already. The companies doing the gene-editing will claim they’ve got varieties of food crops that don’t need pesticides, because the DNA-editing protects the plants from pests and weeds. With blasts of PR, the companies will say these crops should have the status and label, ORGANIC.

There will eventually be a big push in that direction. An organic apple grown in an orchard where the farmer has taken years to clean up the soil and institute natural pest/weed control—that organic apple will be considered identical to an apple whose genes were tweaked and re-tweaked with gene-editing.

The USDA will call these two apples “indistinguishable” from each other.

How do you like them apples?

And as Mr. Rappoport also observes, when people start getting sick from the new apples in this serpentine garden of delights, science will again slither in and hiss in our ear that this problem can be solved by "a snip here and and snip there" in the human genetic code... genetically modified humans, for genetically modified frankenfoods.

See you on the flip side...