Research Group That Takes Millions from Monsanto Finds GMOs Pose No Threat to Health
A new review finds no evidence that GMOs cause cancer, obesity, diabetes or allergies.
It also concludes the crops don’t harm the environment. Headlines from news outlets across the country are proclaiming that GMOs have been proven safe, but most of the news accounts fail to mention an important detail – the research group involved takes millions from biotechnology giant Monsanto.
While the favorable GMO review was released on May 17, an expose on the research group that conducted the review was issued in a brief by the environmental advocacy group Food and Water Watch (FWW) the day before. According to the brief, the scientific body that determined GMOs aren’t a threat to human health isn’t exactly a bastion of integrity.
“Conflicts of Interest at Every Level”
The supposed exoneration of GMOs came after a committee of 50 researchers at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) reviewed 900 GMO studies and data spanning the 20-year period since the introduction of the crops. That sounds very impressive, and if independent scientists had conducted the review, it would indeed merit serious consideration.
In reality, the National Research Council (NRC), the research branch of the NASEM, has deep ties to the biotech and food industries. The FWW brief shows these connections have “created conflicts of interests at every level of the organization.” It states the NRC and NASEM accept millions of dollars in funding from companies like Monsanto, Dow Chemical and DuPont. What’s more, representatives from these corporations along with Nestle Purina, General Mills, Cargill and other GMO-friendly businesses are members of the NRC’s board that oversees GMO projects. The NRC has long held a favorable bias toward the industry and has worked to silence its critics, says FWW.
Politicization of Science
The excerpt below from the FWW brief explains why no credence should be given to the NRC review of GMOs. It also describes how the politicization of science leads to public policy that isn’t based on truth.
“Weak, watered-down or biased findings from the NRC have a very real impact on our food system. Policy makers develop ‘science-based’ rules and regulations on GMOs based on what the science says—especially what the NRC says, because it is part of the National Academy of Sciences, chartered by Congress to provide scientific advice to the federal government.
“And this is where science can become politicized. Companies like Monsanto need favorable science and academic allies to push their controversial products through regulatory approval and on to American farms. Corporate agribusinesses pour millions of dollars into our public universities, play a heavy hand in peer-reviewed scientific journals and seek to influence prestigious scientific bodies like the National Research Council.”
Mainstream News Media Largely Accept the Erroneous GMO Review
While a few of the news accounts of the erroneous GMO review expressed a degree of skepticism, most fell for the false conclusions hook, line and sinker. The USA Today account of the review reported that the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) in Washington D.C. praised the research, calling it “thorough and systematic.” Just who are the presumably august scientists who make up the CSPI? They are researchers whose “science” doesn’t involve peer review, the main mechanism by which studies maintain quality control. Although the CSPI’s name cloaks it in a facade of science, it is actually a public advocacy group that has repeatedly disregarded truth to champion GMOs along with the tobacco industry.
The Los Angeles Times also embraced the review. It didn’t expect the new findings to end the GMO debate, lamenting the fact that “there will always be some people won’t be persuaded by the new scientific data.” Scientific data, indeed! What about the large body of data that has found distinct links to cancer and other illnesses as well as environmental harm? Evidently, the incriminating studies weren’t included in the review.
“We applaud the National Academies and the authoring committee for providing such a thorough, independent and objective examination of the topic,” reported Forbes. Was the NRC’s review independent and objective? Hardly. Forbes is apparently unaware of the multiple ties between the NASEM and the biotech industry.
The mainstream media’s acceptance of the new GMO review reveals how easy it is for a corrupt research institution to deceive the masses. It also shows the enormous harm that can be caused by an advocacy group masquerading as science like the CSPI. Any research from groups like the NRC and any opinions from organizations like the CSPI should be filtered through the sieve of conflict of interests. If such organizations have strong ties to industry, their findings and assessments are worthless. The deception wrought by these institutions lead to public policy that endangers the health of millions of Americans.
Mary West is a natural health enthusiast, as she believes this area can profoundly enhance wellness. She is the creator of a natural healing website where she focuses on solutions to health problems that work without side effects. You can visit her site and learn more at http://www.alternativemedicinetruth.com. Ms. West is also the author of Fight Cancer Through Powerful Natural Strategies.