Monsanto propoganda

This article is good for a laugh, such obvious and blatent Monsanto propaganda, full of lies and truth-twisting. The article is titled Genetically Modified Foods Confuse Consumers. Then the author covers one-by-one many topics that consumers may be confused about and then tells you why GMOs are safe and everything is all good. Can you say, one sided reporting?

Hilarious quote from Nestle:

'GMOs are not really a "thing," Nestle says, and that's hard for the average consumer to grasp. You can't touch or feel a GMO.'

--Well that is sooo helpful nestle, thanks. If you were confused, well that just clears the whole thing up and gee us dumb average consumers are just so overwhelmed at your capacity to enlighten us on the whole situation. But I think the process of genetically engineering crops does produce actual things that we can see and eat, am I right Mr. Smart Business owner man? I don't know what to think, I'm just a dumb average consumer and I'm confused, please help me Mr. Smart man (seriously, sometimes that is how I think these people imagine us).

'Genetically modified foods are plants or animals that have had genes copied from other plants or animals inserted into their DNA. It's not a new idea — humans have been tinkering with genes for centuries through selective breeding. Think dogs bred to be more docile pets, cattle bred to be beefier or tomatoes bred to be sweeter.'

--So hilarious at how they twisted this up. Inserting DNA from a completely independent plant/animal/bacteria/whatever into another object is obviously far different and has no relation to breeding techniques that have been used by farmers for centuries. But though brilliant reporting, this reporter just uses the brilliant transitional statement 'It's not a new idea' and then goes on to say it's the same thing as breeding. Actually Mary Clarke Jalonick, you Monsanto Shill, genetic engineering is a new thing. If it was the same thing as breeding then it would be called breeding, but it is not, it is genetic engineering, that is why it is called genetic engineering and not plant breeding.

'Only a small amount of sweet corn, the corn Americans eat, is genetically modified. Most of the genetically modified corn and soybeans are used in cattle feed, or are made into ingredients like corn oil, corn starch, high fructose corn syrup or soybean oil.'

--Notice that the reporter was very careful to say 'sweet' corn because if she just said corn, this would be an out and out lie. The simple fact is most corn produced in the US is GMO. And just how much of our sweet corn is Genetically-Modified-Organisms and what is not, how do we know? Because it's not labelled!

'Even in some of those products, the manufacturing process itself may remove some of the modified genes.'

Wow, that is just, wow, don't even know what to say to that. It boggles the mind how stupid this reporter is or how stupid she thinks all of us are.

'One French research team raised safety questions, but their much-criticized 2012 study linking genetically modified corn to rat tumors was retracted in 2013 by the scientific publisher, who cited weak evidence supporting the conclusions.'

Yes and the publisher has been criticized greatly for doing so. It is obvious that the publisher was 'persuaded' by someone (gee I wonder who?) to retract this article because none of the stipulations for a retraction were met.

The fact is, consumers are not confused about GMOs, they either have no idea what they are or they don't want them in their food. There is nobody that knows about GMOs that says 'I want that, give me the Genetically-Modified-Organisms one not the regular one'. The consumer gets absolutely no benefit from GMOs and the grocery manufacturers know this. That is the whole reason they are fighting with such gusto against labeling because they know nobody wants to eat it. Their only chance of selling us this crap is to make sure we can't tell which one is Genetically-Modified-Organisms and which one is not. It was the same with the artificial growth hormones in milk and I'm sure some dumb-ass reporters were reporting back then about how consumers were 'confused' and how it was not only safe but better for everyone.

I wonder what kind of person you really are Mary Clare Jalonick, how does your conscience allow you to be a corporate shill when you must be smart enough to realize what you are doing? Well evolve or die, because the world has no place for people like you anymore.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/10/gmo-foods-confuse-con...

Genetically modified foods confuse consumers
Mary Clare Jalonick, AP 9:03 a.m. EDT May 10, 2014
AP Genetically Modified Foods

(Photo11: Glenn Russell, AP)
SHARE11 9 CONNECT11 15 TWEET11 1 LinkedIn11 3 COMMENT11EMAIL11

WASHINGTON — Genetically modified foods have been around for years, but most Americans have no idea if they are eating them.

The Food and Drug Administration says they don't need to be labeled. But in the first major victory for consumers who say they have the right to know whether their food contains GMOs, the state of Vermont has moved forward on its own. On Thursday, Gov. Peter Shumlin signed legislation making his state the first to require labeling of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Throughout the country, there's a lot of confusion about genetically modified foods and their safety, and whether labeling matters.

The food industry and companies that genetically engineer seeds have pushed back against the labeling laws, saying GMOs are safe and labels would be misleading.

"It's really polarizing," says New York University's Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and food studies. "There's no middle ground."

GMOs are not really a "thing," Nestle says, and that's hard for the average consumer to grasp. You can't touch or feel a GMO.

Genetically modified foods are plants or animals that have had genes copied from other plants or animals inserted into their DNA. It's not a new idea — humans have been tinkering with genes for centuries through selective breeding. Think dogs bred to be more docile pets, cattle bred to be beefier or tomatoes bred to be sweeter.

What's different about genetically modified or engineered foods is that the manipulation is done in a lab. Engineers don't need to wait for nature to produce a desired gene; they speed up the process by transferring a gene from one plant or animal to another.

Most of the nation's corn and soybeans are genetically engineered to resist pests and herbicides. A papaya in Hawaii is modified to resist a virus. The FDA is considering an application from a Massachusetts company to approve a genetically engineered salmon that would grow faster than traditional salmon.

Only a small amount of sweet corn, the corn Americans eat, is genetically modified. Most of the genetically modified corn and soybeans are used in cattle feed, or are made into ingredients like corn oil, corn starch, high fructose corn syrup or soybean oil. Even in some of those products, the manufacturing process itself may remove some of the modified genes.

A few fruits and vegetables are engineered — the Hawaiian papaya and some squash and zucchini, for example. But there's no genetically modified meat or fish, like the fast-growing salmon, currently in the market for human consumption; the Food and Drug Administration has yet to approve any.

The vast majority of scientific research has found genetically engineered foods to be generally safe.

An Italian scientist's review of 10 years of research, published in 2013, concluded that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected "any significant hazard directly connected with the use of Genetically-Modified crops."

One French research team raised safety questions, but their much-criticized 2012 study linking genetically modified corn to rat tumors was retracted in 2013 by the scientific publisher, who cited weak evidence supporting the conclusions.

Even the food police say they are safe: The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a well-known critic of food companies and artificial and unhealthy ingredients in foods, has not opposed genetically modified foods, on the basis that there's no evidence they are harmful.

Though what we are eating now appears safe, the main concerns for the future would be new genetically engineered foods — from the United States or abroad — that somehow become allergenic or toxic through the engineering process. The FDA says the foods they have evaluated to this point have not been any more likely to cause an allergic or toxic reaction than foods from traditionally bred plants.

Unlike animals, the FDA is not required to approve genetically engineered crops for consumption. However, most companies will go through a voluntary safety review process before they put them on the market.

There are clear benefits for the agricultural industry — the crops that are resistant to pesticides and herbicides, for example. And companies like Monsanto that produce modified seeds say their technologies will be needed to feed a rising world population as they engineer crops to adapt to certain climates and terrains.

While most modified foods have so far been grown to resist chemicals, pests or disease, advocates envision engineering crops to make them more nutritious as well. Food animals have been engineered to be bred to be free of diseases, be cleaner in their environments or grow more efficiently, though none has yet been approved in the United States.

On the political front, there is an escalating fight between the U.S. labeling advocates and the food industry, which has dug in against labeling. In the absence of a federal labeling standard, GMO opponents have gone to the states to try to get a patchwork of labeling laws approved — a move that could eventually force a national standard.

Ballot measures in California and Washington state failed, but the legislative effort prevailed in Vermont. Maine and Connecticut also have passed laws requiring labels, but they don't take effect unless other states follow suit. The food industry is widely expected to challenge the Vermont law in court.

In Congress, the food industry is pushing a House bill that would head off efforts to enact mandatory labeling of genetically modified ingredients by proposing new voluntary labels nationwide — an attempted end run around the state-by-state laws.

Currently, the FDA says labeling of genetically modified foods isn't needed because the nutritional content is the same as non-GMO varieties.

Safe or not, consumers are increasingly interested in what is in their food, including GMOs.

David Ropeik, the author of the book How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts, says he thinks the food industry should endorse labeling so it can move past the debate.

"By supporting labeling, companies would say, 'There's no risk, we have nothing to hide,'" he says.

AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein and AP Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report. Tweet