Originally published June 11 2012
NYT distorts GMO labeling issue, tries to make it a debate about crop yields
by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The American people are tired of being lied to about the ingredients that are present in the foods they eat, which is why many of them have helped launch or support grassroots efforts to require mandatory labeling of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). But corporate agriculture interests and their lackeys in the mainstream media are desperately trying to derail the labeling movement by shifting the focus from transparency and honesty in labeling, to fairy tales about crop yields and "feeding the planet."
In one such distraction piece, the New York Times (NYT) completely bypasses the issue of honest labeling and how it is vital in any free republic, and instead focuses its readers' attention on the fact that some industry scientists and farmers believe GMOs to be superior for meeting the world's growing food needs. The same piece also claims that "farmers and scientists" are opposed to labeling because consumers will refuse to purchase labeled food.
Whether or not certain scientists and industry representatives personally believe that GMOs have agricultural merit is a non-issue, as the public has every right to know the full contents of food sold at the grocery store regardless. And yet the NYT considers these personal opinions, which contradict all independent science showing that GMOs are responsible for causing human harm, to be a valid argument against labeling initiatives.
And the argument that mandatory labeling will decrease consumer interest in foods that contain GMOs only serves as an example as to why they should be labeled. Because many people are now reporting severe allergic reactions to GMOs, for example, it is vital that a policy of full transparency be put in place so that all consumers can make informed purchasing decisions.
If GMOs are safe and beneficial, then why doesn't the industry want them labeled?
One of the absurd responses that Monsanto and its biotechnology industry counterparts give when questioned about why they oppose labeling is that GMOs are no different from natural foods. Sure, GMOs often contain embedded genes derived from animals (http://grist.org/article/possessions-genetic/), or built-in insecticides (http://www.naturalnews.com/032407_Bt_insecticide_GMOs.html), but they are just as safe as all other food, we are told.
Monsanto is so confident of the safety of its GMOs, in fact, that it has declared human testing of GMOs to be entirely unnecessary (http://www.naturalnews.com). "Just trust us" -- this is the extent of the "science" behind Monsanto's GMOs, most of which have never been tested by anyone other than Monsanto due to the company's proprietary patent holdings. And since most of Monsanto's own "safety testing" obviously validates the legitimacy of "Frankencrops," the agro-giant and its corporate minions can safely declare, whenever given the chance, that they are unaware of any tests showing GMOs to be unsafe.
However, numerous independent studies on GMOs have been conducted over the years, and almost all of them reveal that GMOs are questionable at best. At worst, GMOs have been shown to cause serious organ damage (http://www.naturalnews.com/027931_GMO_crops_organ_damage.html), gastrointestinal problems (http://www.naturalnews.com/026426_GMO_food_GMOs.html), sterility and other reproductive disorders (http://www.opednews.com), chronic inflammation, severe allergies, cancer, and other severe health problems (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers).
Americans should not be forced to be human guinea pigs for the massive science experiment that is GMO technology. It is vital that we stand united as one to pass GMO labeling laws at both the state and national levels to ensure freedom of food choice for all.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.nytimes.com
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml