Flawed Nat Geo propaganda claims organic farming can feed the world - but only with GMOs

(NaturalNews) How great would it be if organic farming were recognized as a way to feed the world? Of course, it has been acknowledged as a good idea by many people around the globe, including the folks involved with the popular magazine National Geographic. That's the good news. The bad? They're on board with it, so long as it's done with GMOs.

A recent article in the magazine, for example, endorsed genetically modified organisms. It featured information involving GMO advocate and scientist Pamela Ronald, carrying this subhead: "Pamela Ronald isolates genes in rice that feeds millions. Her integrative approach to agriculture could be an even bigger game-changer."⁽¹⁾

Furthermore, the story was presented in a way that attempted to convey how both organic and GMO farming, together, are the only way to go. "Only by combining elements of each, she contends, will we have a chance of feeding the world's swelling population (expected to reach 9.2 billion by 2050) while also protecting the planet's natural resources and countenancing the effects of climate change." Interestingly, though, readers are mislead; Ronald's flood-resistant rice is conventionally bred, and did not have anything to do with genetic modifications. Still, the article reads as if GM is the answer, without really delving into why.⁽¹⁾

Author glosses over certain aspects, bashes GMO opponents

The author of the flawed article, Jeremy Berlin, also uses the story as an opportunity to editorialize. He offers his favorable opinion for GMOs by stating, "For years many people around the world have been diametrically, often bitterly, opposed to this type of genetic engineering. (At least when it comes to crops. For whatever reason, few people seem to have a problem with insulin or other lifesaving GM medicines.)"⁽¹⁾

However, Berlin does get right the fact that people are "diametrically opposed." There's a reason the vast majority are not fans of GMOs, and it's because they're harmful for your body, Mr. Berlin. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) came forward with warnings about such foods, citing everything from fertility issues and serious organ changes to a faster than normal aging process and immune problems. The AAEM even urged physicians to tell their patients to avoid GMO foods altogether. Rightfully so, concerned people are against everything GMO.⁽²⁾

Other articles suggest Nat Geo's obedient support of Big Pharma, biotech, GMOs

National Geographic continues to jump on the propaganda bandwagon, further removing themselves away from the ethical, trusted publication they once were. Sadly, the publication has been found to be laced with ads that support Big Pharma, toxins and the biotech industry. The May 2015 issue alone was brimming with them, including one for Bayer Healthcare LLC's K9 Advantix II, which is a flea, tick and mosquito drug for dogs. It's also linked to dog rashes and other canine problems such as seizures and vomiting.⁽³⁾

The same issue also featured a whopping 10-page Cargill-centric spread that attempted to convey how soybeans are the key to preventing rainforest deforestation. A few pages later, another disturbing article followed, this time involving a story that glossed over the link between lactose intolerance issues and pasteurization, instead summing the problem up as something that's just one of those mysterious things in life. Yet another story talked about altered potatoes that look fresher, longer (with no mention of transgenic crop dangers).⁽³⁾

Money talks: Other publications, people changing their health-centric tune

This isn't the first time an esteemed publication has been caught giving in to big advertising pockets.

Not too long ago, O, The Oprah Magazine, came under fire when it ran a Monsanto ad, featuring a happy family in a kitchen environment and wording that encouraged "a bigger discussion about food." The ad drew so much criticism considering Oprah's involvement in organics and healthy lifestyles that a petition on Change.org was created. The petition called for Monsanto ads to be removed, ultimately leaving readers with the final thought: "Oprah, given this information, does this sound like a company that is in alignment with everything you claim to stand for?"⁽⁴⁾

It's also no secret that Bill Nye, the "Science Guy," changed his tune about GMOs. Once an opponent of the detrimental aspects of Frankenfoods, Nye recently announced his desire to update a GMO chapter in his book after he attended a meeting with higher-ups at Monsanto.

Sadly, it seems that people, publications and organizations that were once dedicated to good health are now supporting just the opposite. Together, they've all shifted from being viewed as respected, prestigious sources to ones that represent a narrow mindset, driven by a cookie-cutter, money-hungry mentality.

Sources:

(1) http://gmwatch.org

(2) http://www.responsibletechnology.org

(3) http://www.naturalnews.com

(4) www.change.org