Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, died on September 9, 2009. Alfred G. Gilman died on December 23, 2015. Both were Nobel laureates and now both dead. Gilman was a signatory to a recent letter condemning Greenpeace and its opposition to genetic engineering. How many Nobel laureates does it take to write a letter? Easily ascertained — the dead Gilman and 106 others were enlisted in “supporting GMOs and golden rice”. Correct answer — 107, dead or alive. The laureates were rounded up by Val Giddings (senior fellow, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation), Jon Entine (author of Abraham’s Children: Race, Identity and the DNA of the Chosen People) and Jay Byrne (former head of corporate communications, Monsanto). Real people don’t have the luxury of getting Nobel laureates to write 1/107th of a letter, “chosen” folk do. Evidently. Cornell University is a “chosen” institution — central to genetically modified public relations. The Cornell Alliance of Science is funded by Bill Gates, just like the failed golden rice experiment. The Nobel laureates accuse Greenpeace of killing millions by delaying ghost rice — something the biotech industry accuses me of doing, for the same reason. Unlike golden rice — whose failure to
What better way to discredit your critics than to rope in 107 naive Nobel Prize winners (all without relevant expertise) to criticize your opposition? But such tactics are not new. Long ago, the GMO industry spent well over $50 million to promote “Golden Rice” as the solution to vitamin A deficiency in low income countries. They did so well before the technology was completely worked out, let alone tested. Let alone consumer acceptability tested. Let alone subjecting it to standard phase 2 and 3 trials to see if it could ever solve problems in the real world. So why has this apparently straightforward scientific project not reached completion after so many decades? Because the purpose of Golden Rice was never to solve vitamin A problems. It never could and never will. It’s purpose from the beginning was to be a tool for use in shaming GMO critics and now to convince Nobel Laureates to sign on to something they didn’t understand. Read
* Food & Water Watch researcher Tim Schwab exposes the empty rhetoric and unexplained discrepancies in the Nobel laureate attack on GMO activists Last week, as I read a Washington Post article titled “107 Nobel laureates sign letter blasting Greenpeace over GMOs,” I took note that the story fits in perfectly with the Post editorial board’s recently issued position on GMOs, which argues that “scaremongering” activists are getting in the way of scientific progress on GMOs. I also noted that the Post, in driving its point home, avoids a lot of inconvenient questions. Most obviously, how exactly did the 107 Nobel laureates — almost none of whom work in agriculture or have any expertise on GMOs — get involved in an attack on Greenpeace’s position on genetically engineered “golden rice?” Of all the pressing scientific issues, and all the ways to issue a statement, why pick this issue — and why pick a fight? Industry Attacks on Activists Read
The Roberts/Stabenow bill to kill clear GMO labelling has passed the cloture vote in the Senate, 65 yes to 32 no. This means that there will be 30 hours of debate on the bill and then a simple vote, where they only need 51 yes votes, so this means the bill will undoubtedly pass. More stories on this tragic development: Update: Senate votes to proceed to final debate on GMO labeling bill Read
Greenpeace was denied entrance yesterday (June 30) to a National Press Club Event in Washington, DC of 107 Nobel Laureates. The event was ostensibly organised by a scientific group calling itself Support Precision Agriculture to publicise a letter signed by 107 Nobel Laureates demanding that Greenpeace cease its opposition to “golden rice” and GMO technology in general. Greenpeace was attempting to attend the event. However, senior research specialist on GMOs, Charlie Cray, accompanied by Tim Schwab, senior researcher from Food and Water Watch were both physically prevented from entering the Press Club. “We were told that only credentialed Press were allowed.” Schwab told Independent Science News. According to Schwab “I then saw Greg Jaffe from the NGO Center for Science in The Public Interest (CSPI) entering the room.” Informed of this, the security person changed his story: some NGO’s were invited to attend. Afterwords, Schwab told us “Some NGOs were invited: Really? Why not Greenpeace—the subject of this campaign?” Read
On"The Gary Null Show" today, Gary goes over the latest in health news and environmental news. He dedicates the 2nd half of the show to great guest Ronnie Cummins.
Memory loss protection from algae, says researchers
Inflamed & stressed: Rejuvenating antioxidants in big demand
High-fat Mediterranean diet, not low-fat one, is how you lose weight
Can cannabis treat arthritis pain and inflammation?
Jet Stream Crosses Equator, Unprecedented?
VIDEO: Sen. Rand Paul speaks out against senators voting without reading the bills
President Obama: The race for the imperial legacy
Gary goes to a quick music break and played this tune: Al Jolson - Brother can you spare a dime.
Gary then goes to his guest and has a great interview with him. Here is Ronnie's bio
Ronnie Cummins is the co-founder and International Director of the Organic Consumers Association and its Mexican affiliate Via Organica. In the 1990s, he was a director of the Foundation for Economic Trends in Washington DC. With almost a million members, the Association is a non profit public interest organization campaigning for sustainable health and justice on critical issues of food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, Fair Trade and environmental sustainability. Ronnie has been a life-long activist in the human rights, anti-nuclear, labor and agricultural movements. His writings appear on numerous alternative, independent news including Commondreams, Truthout, and Huffington Post. He is the author of “Genetically Engineered Foods: A Self Defense Guide for Consumers” and a series of children’s book entitled Children of the World. His organization’s website is www.OrganicConsumers.org
On Tuesday June 23rd, it was reported that the Senate’s Agriculture Committee had reached a deal on GMO food labeling and what is essentially a slightly modified version of what clean food proponents have labeled the DARK Act (Denying Americans the Right to Know Act). Senators, corporations and the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association are hailing the bill as the victory for the art of compromise. While labeling proponents and otherwise thinking Americans realize that the bill is nothing more than an attempt to prevent them from actually knowing what they’re eating as well as an attempt to prevent states from making that information available to them. Vermont’s own GMO labeling law comes into effect on July 1st but the Senate’s new bill would preempt that law and other state laws that would require food producers to simply inform consumers of the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Many national food companies have already begun adding simple, on-package GMO labels, many of them doing so in order to comply with the Vermont law proving that labeling can be achieved without economic collapse, mass starvation and the implosion of the universe. Read
“Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food,” the famous quote attributed to Hippocrates, is probably more important today than ever before as a handful of corporations, dubbed Big Food, gain more control over the food industry. Hippocrates’ statement brings up a very complex question: Is food as ‘healthy’ as it used to be, and can it still effectively protect and heal the human body? Consider that, today, what we call food isn’t always real food. It is produce and meat products full of pesticides, herbicides, hormones, antibiotics, and/or GMOs. Or it is pantry food products filled with additives, chemicals, preservatives, industrial by-products, and other non-food ingredients. In order to identify real food, shoppers must look for certification labels that help identify foods that are organic, non-GMO, grass-fed, unpasteurized, without hormones, etc. Read
Genetic engineering isn’t just changing what’s in your food. A company called Oxitec has created a genetically engineered (GMO) mosquito, and they want to release millions of them into a community in the Florida Keys. The problem they’re trying to solve with these GMO bugs is real, but in this case, the cure might be as bad as the disease. The Food and Drug Administration is asking for input right now on whether to approve this project. Tell them to reject GMO mosquitoes! Why GMO Mosquitoes? Local governments in places like the Florida Keys are always looking for ways to control mosquito populations, especially where mosquitoes spread disease. Oxitec’s GMO mosquito is intended to help prevent the spread of dengue fever. They’ve also proposed that their mosquitoes could help fight the Zika virus. The idea is that the offspring of the GMO mosquito will die, reducing overall populations. Read
Biotech giant Monsanto reported multiple profit-plummets in 2015 relating to sales for both its genetically modified crop creations and its best-selling herbicide, Roundup. Once again, Monsanto has reported declining profits for the fiscal second-quarter earnings – by 25%. For Monsanto’s 2nd quarter, total sales for Monsanto dropped 13%; with one of Monsanto’s top-sellers, corn seeds, falling 11%. The biotech giant cites an “unfavorable agricultural market” for its losses, pointing out that: Pressures in overseas markets is increasing Farmers are reporting less income due to less-than-ideal harvests The strength of the U.S. dollar made products more expensive But the company makes little or no mention of the other key factors affecting its bottom line. Organic food demand is exploding like crazy – and the figures show no sign of it slowing any time soon. Read