You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

White House Advocates GMO Toxins While Preaching Healthy School Lunch

Elizabeth Dougherty
CBS Radio / News Report
Published: Sunday 1 July 2012
There continues to be a disconnect among the FDA, USDA, the White House and Americans about what is safe to eat and disclosure about what Americans are consuming.
Article image

Jeffrey Smith from the Institute for Responsible Technology explains exactly how Monsanto's genetically modified corn is toxic to humans, according to a new French study from the University of Caen. In the stunning audio below, Smith details how this corn is designed to rupture the stomach of insects and what it did to the stomachs of humans during this study.

At the very same time President Obama continues to allow his appointees, Michael Taylor, in charge of food safety at the FDA, and Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, to maintain GMOs are safe, the White House holds events to "inform" and "educate" parents about healthy school lunches for children.

There continues to be a disconnect among the FDA, USDA, the White House and Americans about what is safe to eat and disclosure about what Americans are consuming. Upwards of 90% of Americans want genetically modified foods labeled and a petition is still sitting up at the FDA containing well over 1 million signatures from concerned citizens requesting the FDA label GMOs. The FDA had given assurances months ago the agency would consider and respond to the petition. That has yet to happen. In 2007 on the campaign trail, Candidate Obama promised to label GMOs if elected. He has not done so and in fact, appointed Taylor and Vilsack with long-standing ties to Monsanto, a major developer of GMO seeds, instead.

Posted from here:

ABOUT Elizabeth Dougherty

Elizabeth Dougherty has been a food writer for over 10 years, attended culinary school and holds a Bachelor’s degree, Magna Cum Laude in Hospitality, Business and Labor Relations from NYIT. She has been a talk show host of nearly 150 episodes of Food Nation Radio which airs each Saturday morning at 6 on AM1010 CBS and other stations. You can read her articles and hear previous shows on her podcast page on the Food Nation Radio Network website and on Facebook.

Obama really does need to go

Obama really does need to go back to school and take some science classes. Not a bad idea for congresspersons and senators to do the same so that they won't be snowed by Monsanto shills.

This article is bullshit.

This article is bullshit. Firstly, I had a look around for the article published by the University of Caen's biology department, which the article claimed showed the effects of the corn on "the stomachs of humans". I found two articles on GMOs published by the university; In both of the studies, the subject of the tests were rats.

Now, I'm down with animal testing as another mode of testing in the entire process, but that usually involves testing on human volunteers before anything conclusive can be taken from such a study. The link made between effects on rats and on humans are simply educated guesswork. Now I'm sure there have been problems with some GMOs, largely because of the careless rush to get them onto the market as soon as possible to generate as much profit from it. But GM crops are largely responsible for our ability to keep up with the dietary requirements of an exponentially increasing population. It's the reason why we are currently producing enough basic crop to feed 14 billion people on this planet (which is currently home to 7 billion people) and which repels diseases or insects which formerly ravaged our produce. Furthermore, GM farming tends to be less harmful to the environment, seeing as organic farmers still use fertilisers and pesticides developed before the green revolution such as copper sulphate and hydrogen peroxide.

This opposition to GM crop is fucking stupid as pig shit and usually gets spouted by those who are relatively privileged in the sense that they don't have to worry about acquiring food because there is plenty of it going around (ironically because of GMOs).

I mean either you lack the author lacks the capacity to critically engage with information or they have a fixed anti-GMO agenda which they attempted to back up using a source which hardly backs up their argument. Sensationalism FTW!

You're right. It isn't much

You're right. It isn't much of an article, and it cites a very small animal study. But...

You're very sure that the "Green Revolution" is the reason that the huge population we have on earth right now is able to be fed? Why do most people on earth eat from subsistence farming, which is not done with pesticides, fertilizers, and which is done with the same seeds that farmers have saved from year to year? This is risky, of course, and the yield per acre is far lower in assorted vegetables and a field of corn or rice than what a field of wheat or a Palm orchard would bring, but because of modern industrial agriculture moving into countries like the Phillipines and India, mass migration to the cities has occurred, and the Phillippines, like many countries that used to be net exporters of food, is now a food importer.

GMO's don't feed poor people. They fatten rich people's stock animals for meat, including the new rich people in India and China, and corn goes to make ethanol and biodegradable plastic for Americans to be greener. How do GMO seeds, that you have to buy year after year, help the farmer in Africa or India who used to save her seeds year after year? To gain the benefit of GMO seeds, you have to pay up front for seeds, herbicide to treat 3 or 4 times, pesticide, and hope you get the crop to pay for it, and that the price will be enough! In India, if you can't pay, you become a slave to the one who owns the debt, even if it's not legal. Is gambling on a better crop worth that?

I'm not an unscientific person. I know the difference between corporate or local landowners' big plantation farms and subsistence farms which, if they're lucky, have extra to sell. The former use GMO's if the crop is a good bet, because they're suited well to industrial agriculture. They're always looking to buy up small farmers' land, and grow palm oil or GMO corn for export. The latter use saved seed and goat poo, maybe chickens', for fertilizer, and the corn from the big farmers' goes on the market for more than anyone inside their country can afford, because of speculation on the markets, not scarcity.

What a ya expect? Obama is

What a ya expect? Obama is wall street's yes'm massa negro. He hasn't done a thing to prove otherwise.

The tobacco companies once

The tobacco companies once said "there is no proof". That's because the tobacco industry blocked all proof research. Now Monsanto et. al. say the same thing and block all proof research. For more information, please see Also, the GMO's enable much higher use of herbicides like RoundUp which uses something very similar to agent orange which, I think, has been proven to be toxic to humans.

There IS no evidence that

There IS no evidence that GMOs are in any way harmful to people or pets. GMOs are merely products that have been created by similar scientific procedures. They are in fact quite different from each other and should not be lumped together as dangers to people or to the environment. They have on the whole been safety-tested much more extensively than non-GMOs.

They are dangerous to the

They are dangerous to the environment, not directly through the process of genetic modification, but in the way that they are grown. Vast acreages of monoculture are possible without edges or roadsides of native plants for birds or wild pollinating insects to bridge across from one habitat of wild plants to another, and this causes decreases in population density and genetic diversity within species, and in diversity of species within habitats. They also foster disease epidemics within the crop--a new microorganism can destroy a crop's industry.

When GMO's are used, their benefits can only be realized with the concomitant use of large quantities of agricultural chemicals: fertilizers, usually herbicides, pesticides, and lots of petroleum for the most sophisticated GPS farm equipment and aerial spraying during the season. There is evaporation into next-door property, and farther if mistakes are made with spraying, and runoff into groundwater and surface water, which can substantially contaminate streams and lakes in agricultural areas, causing algae and larger plants to clog lakes and streams and choke out fish. The monoculture and large amounts of herbicides and insecticides create resistant organisms, like Roundup resistant weeds and corn rootworm that's Bt resistant.

The threat to humans and societies in the global south countries has additional issues to do with subsistence agriculture and soil depletion/salination...

Dear fDH

Dear fDH (assw-pe).

There ya go!

All you had to do was 5 seconds of due diligence to find out the truth.

But like every other naysaying iconoclast, you parrot the party line.

"There's no proof," and,"We should study it more."

Here's the proof ... and the study.

Be good to yourself: google for more proof and study. They're out there.

But you won't.

You'll just call me a d_ck.

Nobody in their right mind

Nobody in their right mind would trust Scientists. They are bought and paid for just like our politicians. Boo / Double Boo to Science and Scientists. 90% don't want it. So stuff it where the sun doesn't shine.

Real Name: Doug Pederson AKA SpectateSwamp (2-Min 2-Sec) video
where our Agriculture critic explains how Crop Life lobbyists got the two old line parties (Conservatives and Liberals) to vote against GMO labeling. Only the NDP and Bloc voted for the Canadian People and Transparency.

Good info but you really need

Good info but you really need to provide links of evidence. Cite your source.

The Institute for Responsible

The Institute for Responsible Technology and Jeffrey Smith are not reliable sources for the facts on GMOs. Smith isn't a scientist nor does he have any experience in agriculture. He has two *self-published* books on GMOs which have been discredited by actual scientists. Also, the study you cited has been criticized by other scientists as not reliable with many flaws.

You have provided no evidence

You have provided no evidence that GMO foods are toxic to humans, not even a title, author, or in which journal the research was published. GMO's are extremely dangerous to our agriculture in North America, the global south, and to the whole ecosphere, as part of the industrial agriculture/petrochemical/globalization crisis that they are a serious and integral part of, and I don't know why you feel you have to assert speculative and even nutty stuff about GMO toxicity to humans (so far) to work against them proactively. We have enough evidence that they are killing our food system--isn't that killing us?

Whereas there's plenty of evidence that the garbage that's served in school cafeterias and vending machines is making kids fat and giving them Type II Diabetes, and probably cholesterol deposits in their arteries. Of course, getting the same food at home because that's what everyone does, and not walking back and forth to school because violent crime is at the lowest rate since the 40's, doesn't help. We know for sure that trans-fats, sugar, and starch are not healthy for frequent consumption, to say the least. The more that Michelle Obama, or anyone, can do about this will help. Detroit is farming in the blocks of abandoned homes.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...