World Health Organization Only Requires 90 Days ‘Safety Testing’ on GMOS
Have you ever wondered why the World Health Organization (WHO) only requires 90 days of testing on GM crops before scientists are allowed to call them ‘safe’ or ‘statistically equivalent’? Yeah, so have I.
Now that all of the suppressed science about GM food is coming out, it makes perfect sense why an agency that has such a heavy hand in the world food supply would act as though they were conducting a real investigation of genetically modified organisms, all while shoring up information they’ve had that GM food is toxic for decades.
Here is the WHO’s current statement on GMOs on its website, despite the WHO IARC’s recent findings that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic.’
“Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g. through the introduction of a gene from a different organism. Currently available GM foods stem mostly from plants, but in the future foods derived from GM microorganisms or GM animals are likely to be introduced on the market. Most existing genetically modified crops have been developed to improve yield, through the introduction of resistance to plant diseases or of increased tolerance of herbicides.
In the future, genetic modification could be aimed at altering the nutrient content of food, reducing its allergenic potential, or improving the efficiency of food production systems. All GM foods should be assessed before being allowed on the market. FAO/WHO Codex guidelines exist for risk analysis of GM food.”
Notice there is no mention whatsoever that GM foods have not been proven safe, or that their claims of giving plants resistance to disease or even increased resistance to herbicides has been found to be untrue.
In an FAQs section, the following answer is given to a commonly asked question:
“How is a safety assessment of GM food conducted?
The safety assessment of GM foods generally focuses on: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) potential to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion.”
Notice how the requirement of only three months for testing all of these ‘unintended side effects’ is glaringly missing.
Notice how there is no mention of the fact that in a widely used study, rats who dined on a 33% GM diet for their full lifetimes, typically between 30 and 36 months, became seriously ill with health problems that started showing up at – guess which month? Four.
In just four months, a trifling four weeks after the WHO’s required duration for GM testing, we can see the truth of what genetically modified food does to our health. (Begin at minute 3:37.)
Notice there is no mention whatsoever that GM foods have not been proven safe
Notice how the author doesn’t understand that GM foods are not all the same and that the safety of such products must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on the nature of the introduced modification? Yeah, so did I.
So to say that “GM foods have not been proven safe” is to say that assume that there would be some way of testing all GM foods that could possibly be made. In other words, it’s either fallaciously setting up an unreachable goal or it’s a great example of a pseudo-journalist with an agenda to promote.
claims of giving plants resistance to disease or even increased resistance to herbicides has been found to be untrue
Actually, both of those claims are absolutely true. What this pseudo-journalist fails to mention is that Rainbow papaya was successfully engineered to be resistant to ringspot disease and RoundUp Ready crops are very much resistant to the common herbicide glyphosate.
So what do you think is the issue here? Is the author truly this ignorant and too lazy to use Google? Or is she working to promote a specific agenda by lying to people?
I would think the author is opening up the topic for conversation and genuine discussion.
Maybe we could all benefit from researching and applying facts and logic?
I say she has provided some interesting information, maybe we could all provide some assistance and research, further opening a mature and logical dialogue.
But to just bash her and refuse the challenge is child’s play. I don’t adhere to the theory of blind faith.
The author has not provided an accurate representation of the facts. Her article seems intentionally designed to mislead. I am not relying on blind faith. I have actually studied this field extensively, and unlike the author have an advanced degree directly related to this research.
Science always fails when it tries to play Mother Nature, proven and documented.
So your own extensive research and knowledge would support this fact.
Science always fails when it tries to play Mother Nature, proven and documented.
I’m not sure what that statement is supposed to mean. It sounds reasonable until one actually stops and thinks about it. For one thing, science is a set of methods, and thus by its very nature cannot “play” anything. For another, have you looked at the world around you lately? Science has provided us with numerous ways to alter the natural environment for our benefit.
Science and profiteering doesn’t work well with nature.
Especially when it ends in a monopoly.
Off hand, I can’t think think of one of natures impressive displays that I wouldn’t prefer over technology or presumed scientific discovery.
Look up the term “deepity”. Your comments are an example of that. You seem to shun science, yet don’t give any examples of why. Nor do you seem to acknowledge the irony of doing so when using a computer and the internet.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity
Ah yes, I certainly believe you. And I’m the last Bogd Khan. You know it’s true because I said it on the internet. Lol.
Ok. Don’t believe. I happen to have a PhD in plant biochem. But I see that your skepticism is highly selective, a condition also known as confirmation bias.
Cute. Try looking up the word “projection.”
90 day study continues inside each one of us results to be determined ! 90 seemed sufficient.?
I.e., we’ve been forced to participate in a grotesque medical experiment without our informed consent.
All of you people who are leaning toward thinking GMOs are safe, please read Altered Genes, Twisted Truth by Steven M. Druker. They have not been proven safe. Yes each gmo should be tested on an individual basis. This has not been done. They have been given a blanket approval. Read the book. It’s a real eye opener. We are being poisoned!
Thank you! – The blanket approval is due in great part to the revolving door industry shills, folks like Michael Taylor, e.g.
The ‘GMO-leaners’ here always show up to bash Ms Sarich and to defend anything done by the GMO industry. I suspect it’s what they’re paid to do. Chuckle.