World Health Organization Only Requires 90 Days ‘Safety Testing’ on GMOS
Sufficient for global experimentation?
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.)
 | Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga. |
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.
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.
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.”
If this was a one of a kind thing then we could understand it, but she is seriously lacking on every article she attempts to write. It is sad.
So you think 90 days is sufficient?
Why?
Because this is what the experts say is enough.
The experts are paid and their livelihood depends on their loyalty to their benefactors.
As the people our families depend on our protection for their present and future existence.
To not question, I wouldn’t be much of a protector would I?
For the safety or our future, questioning authority is the right thing to do.
These standards have existed long before gmos and are agreed upon by the scientific community. You can question things but at some point constant questioning on an issue that has already been studied to death is pointless.
.edu
Conflict of interests.
Through genetic manipulation, the seeds are sterile they won’t grow= monopoly
Wrong. So-called terminator seeds have not been commercialized.
Prove it.
Got it, they just have the patents on them.
And they promised they won’t introduce them into nature, good enough for me.
Are you kidding?! How am I supposed to prove that something doesn’t exist? Hahaha. My goodness. Maybe you’d like me to also prove that leprechauns don’t exist?
Terminator seeds do exist and this can be proven through the patent office. I had the patent information, but I’m not going to look it up again.
Many of the hybrid seeds are sterile, heirlooms and GMO’s are not.
I kept researching, I was wrong, it happens.
What doesn’t exist, greed corruption, con men, scam artists, folks who will do anything for money?
If you can’t find proof of this, you might want to take a break from the internet, maybe turn on the tv during your break.
We the people have rights, GMO and their lobbyists with their deep pockets cannot side step our rights.
There are many examples of introductions into sensitive eco areas, and in almost all, after 10 years the scientific community has said, whoops.
What would be the issue with conducting a realistic time based controlled impact study?
It’s ok. Mistakes happen. Made my fair share too and I will make more in the future. What matters is whether a person recognizes and corrects his or her mistakes. That you’re not afraid to recognize your mistakes publicly speaks highly of you. Respect.
Yes, you’re correct that patents for terminator seeds exist. However, none of the current GM crops on the market employ the technology. Ironically, it would be the best way to avoid cross-pollination. I really don’t understand why the technology hasn’t been used. Perhaps there are technical challenges I am not aware of.
Gene tampering has unpredictable results. If GMO pollen contaminates a normal crop, the normal crop may become altered and reproduce – regardless of whether the GMO crop reproduces.
Gene tampering has unpredictable results.
Yes, genetic engineering can produce off target mutations. This is why backcrossing is important. Similarly, conventional hybridization introduces numerous changes. To remove unwanted changes while maintain the target trait, breeders backcross. I can explain this further if necessary.
If GMO pollen contaminates a normal crop
Yes, cross-pollination is a potential concern. Ironically, one of the best ways to prevent this (so-called ‘terminator seed’ technology) has not been commercialized at least in part due to opposition to the technology.
It annoys me that the GMO industry is using the word “hybrid” to give the impression that their so-called crops are being hybridized (cross-bred) in the normal way.
The experts are paid and their livelihood depends on their loyalty to their benefactors.
Ad hominem fallacy. Some experts are employed by the companies marketing GM crops, but they account for a small percentage of the number of people with PhDs in relevant fields. Attempting to ignore all experts based on perceived conflicts of interest is irrational.
For the safety or our future, questioning authority is the right thing to do.
There’s a difference between questioning authority and ignoring evidence presented to you. Yes, you should absolutely question authority. But how are you going to evaluate the response you receive if not by evidence?
Just finished some interesting research on the topic.
Much can be attributed to not applying the innovative remedies already available.
Also, in todays modern age many ecological attributing factors are brought in from outside, hence the aphid. For budget and expense reducing efforts, genetics were employed. Predatory methods were not employed enough, or on a large enough scale to effectively reduce the aphid population.
Evidence provided by the profiteering corporation should always be questioned, because their evidence always supports their claims as they have too much to lose.
Research, lobbying interests and you will find that is how the major corp’s got the ability to conduct their own research and have it applied as scientific fact. they paid for their privileged of their own biased research.
Any profiteering corp that is allow to subvert and subject any independent sources as not applicable to relevant scientific journals is in due course looking out for their own.
In science a paradigm
is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories,
research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitutes
legitimate contributions to a field. These are promoted within the scientific fields and further trained within the .edu.
A following as to this regard stifles the true nature of scientific discovery, imagination and the ability to seek ones course, path, of research.
The forbidden knowledge states that the corps and other entities only release what they consider need to know information to the pubilc, in the protection of their research and within their quest for profits.
Facts, research it.
I had started this research some time ago, though it’s not complete yet, but enough to allow you the knowledge, the research has been and will be conducted by monsanto, for monsanto and to the benefit of monsanto.
WHO flies under the UN Flag, one of the worst violators of human existance ever allowed to spew on any forum.
Anything coming from WHO is more than likely garbage and should be questioned and answers demanded.
Never trust UN sources.
Always. – I note that the responder below has called “The experts are paid…” an “ad hominem fallacy.” Lol. It’s not a fallacy when it’s a fact. Moreover, the GMO industry pays the media to spread the propaganda bought from the so-called experts.
The Monsanto experts no doubt.
LOL, that has been the standard for more than just gmos, and for a lot longer than gmos have existed. It never was a problem before, and it only is now because you don’t like the product.
When cancer rides in on the tail of 90-days testing anyone in their right mind would run a mile. On course you talk the talk but balk at the walk because you imagine GMO’s are somehow safe and edible. Bon appetit bonehead!
Let’s see they have been in the food chain for twenty years now, with multiple generations of livestock eating them, some for years. All with zero issues. It is a shame that your horror stories are in reality fantasies.
I find everything to do with GMO’s in the realm of the grotesque. Your support of GMO’s only inspires my revulsion. I noticed today that “Environmental Sciences Europe”, a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering all aspects of environmental science published Seralini’s article in 2014. Debunks the bogus tag somewhat, don’t you think.
Why don’t you tell the rest of the truth? The original was printed and retracted from a journal that had an IF rating of over 3 and was rated the 27th best journal out of 210. Your environmental sciences Europe has an IF of .55 which ranks it 190 out of 210. No wonder no one even paid attention when it was republished, the ones at the bottom of the rankings will print anything and was probably paid to do so.
Spot on. – Monsanto shills squealed and screamed and whined that Seralini used the ‘wrong kind of rat.’ It was the same type that Monsanto used.
I note that GMO Roberts (below) responds to you by saying that livestock have had “zero issues” from eating GMO diets. GMO Roberts lies. Tumors, miscarriages, birth defects, liver and kidney damage, and infertility in later generations are only a few of the problems that GMO Roberts refuses to admit. We expect no less of a shill.
That pig study Judy Carman talks about, they did on Howard Vliegers farm in NW Iowa. He traveled the country talking about the findings on that study along with lots of pics of the pig guts, charts and just a whole ton of visual aids.
Howard Vlieger Presentation on GMOs and Family Farming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mLCaYgPjhU
Do you even know what the standards even are? On any thing? Did you know that in those feed studies that crap that has been banned for 30 years or more still show up in the food. Did you know the chemicals they test for are already in the food for the control group? Did you know I got the Russians to change there standards last spring?? So are you going to have 500ppm of Enlist daily?? Can you pass the 1912 8th grade standard graduation test?
http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2013/0812/1912-eighth-grade-exam-Could-you-make-it-to-high-school-in-1912/Arithmetic
These standards are dated as anyone that has a clue can clearly see.
Contaminant Maximum Acceptable Limit Unit Arsenic 1.00 ppm Cadmium 0.50 ppm Lead 1.50 ppm Mercury 0.20 ppm Selenium 0.50 ppm Aflatoxin B1, B2, G1, G2 5.00 ppb Aldrin 0.03 ppm Lindane 0.05 ppm Chlordane 0.05 ppm DDT & related substances 0.15 ppm Dieldrin 0.03 ppm Endrin 0.03 ppm Heptachlor 0.03 ppm Heptachlor Epoxide 0.03 ppm Toxaphene 0.15 ppm PCB’s 0.15 ppm a-BHC 0.05 ppm b-BHC 0.05 ppm d-BHC 0.05 ppm Hexachlorobenzene 0.03 ppm Mirex 0.02 ppm Methoxychlor 0.50 ppm Thimet 0.50 ppm Diazinon 0.50 ppm Disulfaton 0.50 ppm Methyl Parathion 0.50 ppm Malathion 0.50 ppm Parathion 0.50 ppm Thiodan 0.50 ppm Ethion 0.50 ppm Trithion 0.50 ppm
Glyphosate is not included in the “standard panel of environmental contaminants!” That.s just the tip of the ice berg!!
We know that Monsanto (and other corporations) influence what the FDA, USDA, WHO, USAID, etc. ad nauseum say. Money talks, and GMO filth walks.
Factor GMO – Is Your Safety Trial Contaminated by Glyphosate?
http://farmwars.info/?p=14033
**Monsanto Paid experts
Yes, anyone. That doesn’t agree with you must work for monsanto
Heck yeah brother. Its about time you join us on the anti-gmo campaign. I knew you would see the light.
Sarcasm is totally beyond you isn’t it.
Nothing is beyond me Robertowski (Why didnt you tell me you were Polish?). But i agree with you. Lets keep calm, Mother Natures Food is safe, just as it has been for a really long time. I mean even Little Foot in the land before time was munching on her plant goodies. Do you think if we had GMO back then, the dinosaurs would still be around?
Very good point. Gmos could have been made to grow with less sunlight from when the dust cloud from the meteor blocked out the sun. I knew you were a gmo fan!!!!
Barry says if he was lord and master 200 years ago GMO’s would have saved your favorite bird, the Dodo. He would have renamed it the Dodo Bobo.
Hey that’s pretty cute there Abe. I bet you can relate to all sorts of rhymes that children could relate to. In reality, maybe gmo technology can someday resurrect the dodo, and cure your diseases as well.
So tell me Bobo, If you ate a 1 ounce serving of leaded paint chips for 90 days and didn’t get sick and die you would consider it safe correct? Same with maybe a couple dozen alpha particles from U-232, and after 90 days with no problem it would be safe to eat. Have you gotten your minimum daily allowance of formaldehyde today?
Hey I heard from you buddy today. Remember GMO Roberts is a shill? He’s back.
They tested rats not people. 90 days to a rat is a considerable amount of their lifespan. Secondly, gmos are food not paint. Third, there are plenty of tests out there that were done following scientific standards longer than 90 days and they all show safety.
As far as the shill is concerned you need not worry, cause you are my on BFF!!!
GMO Roberts and the other shills have an ongoing campaign against Sarich because she doesn’t kiss Monsanto’s ring (whether finger ring or rump ring). GMO Roberts follows the old playbook ploy of repeating the big lie.
After reading several of her articles I think you could make a case for any of them, but I lean towards the out right lying.