Science Under Attack-Genetic Engineering

[mother earth]

Statements made by scientists themselves prove that 95% of the research in the area of
genetic engineering is paid by the industry. Only 5% of the research is independent. The big
danger for freedom of science and our democracy is evident.

-------
Total control of food and all that entails is one of the biggest threats to all of us on a global level, unprecedented in its scope. The same tactics used to sway opinion in the “climate denial” age, resulting in science itself being denied, funded in the very same way by the GMO industry, is being exposed on a daily basis. When seed and food manipulation results in increasingly horrific results, there comes a time when we must ask ourselves if we completely understand the magnitude of what is unfolding.

While other countries are increasingly banning all GMO products, ours favors ignorance and chooses against labeling these products, enabling that industry to put us all at risk. Somehow, letting the market dictate what is best, and the consumer’s right to choose is not what will dictate what we serve at our dinner tables. That age old basic tenet of capitalism must be thrown out. An educated consumer, obviously, cannot and will not dictate the market, not when deceptive practices can garner more profit. Science must again be denied, and criminality is aided and abetted.

How is it that foreign entities are more powerful and effective at knowing exactly what it is they are purchasing? Increasingly other countries are choosing to ban GMOs . If you are a US citizen, however, you have no such authority. Even when we demand labeling, the monied opposi tion comes out swinging in full force throwing billions into advertising and campaign efforts. Big agriculture is not going to allow for truth in advertising, much less science.

Seemingly, those who live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, are a huge faction of consumers to be exploited at the will of multinational corporations who have the power within our gov’t to dictate law and establish policy, another branch of the plutocracy that is usurping what once we called democracy.

For a few individual stories of science denial & the extent the industry will go to:

http://scientistsunderattack.com/

PROTAGONISTS Dr. Ignacio Chapela, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, Dr. Susan Bardosz

A few other important links:
http://www.foe.org/
http://www.omsj.org/blogs/gm-salmon-rejected-by-whole-foods-trader-joes-aldi-and-other-retailers

[AceAcme]

1. Excellent - K and R

This clip lays bare all the standard lies the trolls on DU use to project the specious claim that folks who want clean, uncompromised food for themselves and their family are somehow "anti-science." Such Bullshit. The corporate trolls who promote GMOs on this site are in fact part of the vast corporate profiteering anti-science establishment out to systematically muddy the truth with their bogus corporate "research" performed only -- because of corporate "patents" on life forms -- by bought-and-paid for "science" sell-outs.

Corporate trolls strike a sanctimonious pose, while denigrating the human beings who simply want clean, uncompromised food, and the right to know -- with labels -- what kind of crap the corporations are trying to shove down their throats and the throats of their children.

Thank you for posting.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

2. These are scientists whose studies have been peer-reviewed

And REJECTED. And you want to believe them over the millions of other scientists, why?
Because it fits your bias.

Research the scientists mentioned, and what their studies were that were rejected. This is NOT a documentary, it's FUD pure and simple.

[Thespian2]

3. Do some research before putting your foot in your mouth.

Took about 2 minutes on Google to refute your spurious claims. Quote from The Nature Institute:

Soon after Nature's announcement, it became clear that the harsh reactions of several of the scientists was not merely science-based. These scientists worked at the University of California at Berkeley, where Quist and Chapela also worked. Berkeley has a unique—and very controversial—$25-million "strategic alliance" with the biotech company Syngenta through which much research is funded. Quist and Chapela are among those Berkeley scientists who opposed this alliance, since they believed it compromised academic freedom. Johannes Fütterer, who authored one of the critical letters to the editor, was a strong proponent of the alliance. Although such critics tried to maintain the guise of scientific objectivity, it's hard not to see an ideological component in their campaign against Quist and Chapela.

So called "scientists" who sold their souls to the GMO greedy bastards gave up the right to do honest research. They know it. You should too.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

8. I did my research...

You're no different from a climate change denier. Ignoring the VAST MAJORITY of scientists and calling them paid shills of the industry, and giving credence to a handful of scientists whose PERSONAL VIEWS are incongruent with the actual data.

By the way, Nature's editor added this note to the original article:

"insufficient evidence to justify the original publication"

Then there's this:

"A subsequent study performed in 2003–2004 at two independent labs, found no evidence of transgenic DNA in Mexican maize. However, a more recent study published in the February 2009 issue of Molecular Ecology confirmed the presence of transgenic DNA in Mexican maize. The study, however, did not confirm an important conclusion from the 2001 Nature paper, namely, that the transgene-contaminated corn has replicated."

Also, take a look at the BBC documentary Science Under Attack. It discusses anti-science views on climate change, GMOs, and the AIDS/HIV link. It's a MUCH more reliable documentary than this piece of FUD.

Not that I'm gonna change your mind. It's like arguing with climate change denialists. They nitpick the 2 or 3 studies that fit their narrow world view, and ignore the VAST evidence out there (or, as I stated before, write it off as "paid shills&quot .

But if you wanna keep promoting a video that cites reviews from NaturalNews, go ahead. This is nothing more than Loose Change: GMO Edition. FUD. FUD. FUD.

[ag_dude]

11. Stop linking to "The Nature Institute"...

...and read the actual scientific articles.

[mother earth]

4. I offered up the website info which outlines what they went through & were up against, more:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17133.cfm

QUOTES: "As far as public opinion is concerned, I do see this as a vindication" - Dr Ignacio Chapela in 2009 (item 1)

"This is a very, very well concerted, co-ordinated and paid for campaign to discredit the very simple statement that we made" - Dr Ignacio Chapela in 2002 (item 2)

"Many people are going to need that reference [editor's note disassociating Nature from Chapela's research], not least those who, like me, will be in the frontline fights for biotech during the Hague negotiations" - Willy De Greef, then of Syngenta and now Secretary General of the industry lobby group EuropaBio (item 2)

Elena Alvarez Buylla, author of the article published in the February edition of Molecular Ecology, said the difficult atmosphere surrounding the original debate - which threatened the reputations of some scientists - persists. (item 1)

Dr Sue Mayer from GeneWatch UK says: "It is quite extraordinary the lengths the biotech industry and the scientific establishment will go to discredit any critical science."

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai

Biography
Dr Pusztai has a PhD from the University of London in biochemistry and physiology, and is former senior scientist at the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland. Dr Pusztai was dismissed from the Rowett Research Institute after he went public with his research on GM potatoes in 1998. The research was finally published in The Lancet in 1999.
In 2005, Dr Pusztai was honoured with a whistleblower award from the Federation of German Scientists. Since his research was made public he has given close to 200 lectures across the world.


----------

Seems like enough is never enough, just like in climate denial, science is turning into fodder for special monied interests. Whatever fits your bias, "Dr" H....GM biotech industry has far more money than any of us, or we would have GM labeling because that is what the consumer clearly wants. Funny how profit trumps the will of the people.

[ag_dude]

12. Why link to "Organicconsumers.org" to support a claim somebody is biased?

You don't see a bias in that entire site? If there were a site called "GMOSupporters.org" you could laugh at it before even thinking of clicking the link.

Link to the actual scientific articles, not propaganda sites.

[mother earth]

5. Dr. Ignacio Chapela (from link to Scientists Under Attack, above)

In the Spring of 2001, respected science journal, Nature, does something unprecedented. For the first time in its 137-year history, the world's most important science magazine retracts a published article. It's an event which is not only highly unusual, but very worrying. A scientist has come under attack simply for doing his job.

The article in question has been submitted a few months earlier by renowned biologist, Dr. Ignacio Chapela. It concerns the cross-pollination of Mexico's indigenous maize by GM varieties. The issue of Nature is still being distributed when the editors are inundated with a flood of angry emails. Ignacio's scientific qualifications and integrity are called into question. Why has an apparently normal scientific paper caused such a storm?

Shortly afterwards, George Monbiot and Claire Robinson - journalists at national British newspaper The Guardian - make a startling discovery. All of the letters in this campaign to discredit Dr. Chapela can be traced back to a single source: the Bivings Group - a public relations agency.

They also discover that the agency is being paid by Monsanto, the giant multi-national chemical and seed corporation. Monsanto has commissioned the Bivings Group to carry out a viral marketing campaign, proudly lauded on their homepage as an effective and modern advertising strategy to "Infect the world!" Fictitious opinions and letters from non-existent individuals are computer-generated and flood the addressee's inbox. The next question is obvious: Why is the Monsanto corporation so determined to discredit Dr. Chapela's research?

In 2001, Mexican-born Chapela had discovered that the indigenous maize of Oaxaca province - despite being officially protected by the Mexican government - has been significantly contaminated by genetically-manipulated maize. This is a major finding, because Oaxaca is not just some spot on the map. The region is the world's genetic reservoir for different varieties of indigenous maize, and its was from here that maize set out to conquer the world, 5,000 years ago. Ignacio's discovery is highly alarming, and Monsanto's fierce response shows that he has identified the weak spot of companies involved in genetic engineering. His findings undermind the idea of co-existence - the belief propagated by the genetic engineering industry that natural plants can grow alongside genetically-manipulated plants without any cross-pollination.

But Monsanto aren't content with forcing Nature to bow to imaginary pressure and retract the article - they go after Ignacio himself. On the strength of his remarkable international career, Chapela is expected to be granted a professorship and tenure at the University of Berkeley. But he is rejected "for financial reasons" at the end of 2004, and suddenly finds himself in a situation where both his position as a scientist and his livelihood are in jeopardy.

So is Monsanto's suppression of the uncomfortable facts about cross-pollination between GM and normal crops a one-off storm in a scientific teacup? Definitely not. What Ignacio discovered is a grave danger to the welfare of everyone on the planet: It threatens the biodiversity of our plants, the safety of our food, and the environment.

Chapela already has experience of waging a fight for freedom through research that went against the wishes of the genetic engineering industry.

He objected to an agreement which meant that the department and faculty of Plant and Microbial Biology at UC Berkeley took money from Novartis in exchange for a degree of publication scrutiny and trade secrecy. He took a strong stance on the issue.

Chapela was initially denied tenure at UC Berkeley in 2003. Supporters claim that this denial stems from opposition to Chapela's anti-Novartis activism on the part of Molecular and Cell Biology faculty member Jasper Rine, who was both a member of the tenure committee and in a research relationship with the company. In 2005, Chapela was finally awarded tenure.

He has also spoken out against the deal between UC Berkeley, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and British Petroleum to research the development of biofuels, which may involve genetically engineering microorganisms and plants. The grant went into effect in 2007.

Chapela founded The Mycological Facility in Oaxaca state: A facility dealing with questions of natural resources and indigenous rights, and collaborates with indigenous communities in Mexico, Costa Rica, and Ecuador on issues of rights to genetic resources. He is also an advisory board member for The Sunshine Project, an organization promoting citizens' concerns regarding biosafety and biowarfare.

He has appeared in several films on genetically-modified organism and food systems issues, including The World According to Monsanto, The Future of Food, and Scientists under Attack - Genetic engineering in the magnetic field of money (2010), produced and directed by Bertram Verhaag, DENKmal-Film.

[mother earth]

6. Dr. Árpád Pusztai (excerpt from same link, Scientists Under Attack, please do read the rest there)

In 1996 and 1997, Dr. Pusztai and his co-worker and wife Dr. Susan Bardócz carried out the first carefully-designed and highly sensitive nutrition and toxicologiocal feeding study testing a genetically modified food, potatoes engineered to express the snowdrop lectin gene. On January 13, 1998, Pusztai discussed their findings in an interview broadcast as part of the BBC evening news. It triggered a series of events that have since profoundly impacted scientific and public attitudes about GM foods.

Just days after the interview, Dr. Pusztai was relieved of his duties by the director of the Rowett Research Institute, had his laboratory notes confiscated, and was, in effect, banned from any further interaction with his colleagues at Rowett, where the experiment had been conducted. His wife was then the manager of the division of the Rowett Institute within which the work was carried out. She, too, lost her job over the controversy triggered by the article.

In its October 16, 1999 issue, the respected British medical journal The Lancet published the Pusztai study results, in an article co-authored with Dr. Stanley Ewen. The research was subjected to an unprecedented two-year campaign of criticism carried out by proponents of GM technology. The U.K. Royal Society played an active role in organizing and publicizing criticisms of the Pusztai-Ewen experiment. The Lancet subsequently published a series of letters raising various questions and criticisms, to which Pusztai and Ewen responded fully. The validity of their study and its findings remain intact. To this day, the Pusztai-Ewen experiment remains the most sensitive and rigorous GM food feeding trial ever conducted.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

9. You are quoting a website trying sell it's

"Thriller Documentary". Promoted by NaturalNews, PrisonPlanet, BeforeItsNews, AboveTopSecret, and every other FUD site out there.

Keep your tinfoil tight.

[mother earth]

10. Total BS, you are touting the same crap as Monsanto & its other bought and paid for entities.

Whistleblowers are everywhere & it's getting more difficult to buy the GM anti-science, because they do not have actual studies themselves. They aren't interested in science, they are interested in profit. Labelling is what they fear most, they profit through ignorance.

You are a science denier, might as well get on the climate change denial bandwagon while you are at it. It works for them too, only follow the money trail...as always...money trumps all.

[AceAcme]

7. Not surprising that "people" are still systematically campaigning to falsify the validity...

..of every independent study which raises serious, valid, and tested concerns about GMO corporate crap.

Real science remains under pernicious attack by chemical, drug, and GMO corporations & agents.

[panfluteman]

13. I Side with the 5%

of independent researchers who are NOT funded by the biotech industry. It's really a specious argument to use the veneer of a so-called scientific majority that has been artificially created by the PR terror and intimidation tactics of Monsanto and other biotech megacorporations. I have come to the conclusion that the majority have been systematically silenced or bought off, and my conscience, as well as the precautionary principle, tells me to listen to the findings of those who are independent researchers.

The real tin foil hat extremists who have mad delusions of conquering the world through its food supply are the biotech firms like Monsanto. In their mad, delusive greed, they cannot see the tremendous peril in which they place biodiversity and the ecological future of life on this planet, much less the very real health risks of eating GM foods. As the trailer so aptly points out, there are absolutely no benefits for the consumer from eating GM foods, only risks, and any consumer in his or her right mind would not buy GMO foods knowingly, and if offered the choice.

Just as there are turncoat Democrats in congress who have placed corporate interests above those of the constituents they are supposed to represent, I don't see why there can't also be trolls for the biotech industry lurking in the dark corners of DU.

[mother earth]

14. Absolutely! Well said, panfluteman. I will side with mother nature every time, perfection, full

flavor & abundant health, no patent can touch that.

[fasttense]

15. If GMO is just so great why don't they identify it when it is in our food?

Shouldn't we have the right to choose non-GMO? As a farmer it is almost impossible to find animal feed that does NOT contain GMO. Most producers wont label their products with GMOs identified. When I do find it, it is over twice the price. Guess where I find it? In Europe. And paying for shipping is huge.

So, I've gone to feeding my animals as much grass as I can but I don't even know if there are GMOs in among my grasses. There are wheat and rye grasses that are seeding themselves. How do I know if these invaders have GMO genes or not? The GMO industry is infecting our food supply. If some trolls want to eat it let them. But why should I be forced to eat it when I don't want it? Why should my animals have to eat it when I don't want them to?

It's being forced down our throats and we'll all soon be choking on it. All because some ignorant CEOs, shareholders and boards want to make some more profit.