GMO Report by CBS: A Disservice to Americans

A biased report by a major mass media corporation reveals inadequate and insufficient research on GMOs resulting in a disservice to the American people who are consequently denied their right to know the truth.

 

By Jeff Kirkpatrick

wordpress article CBS this Morning’s Report on GMOs A Disservice to the People of America

CBS this Morning did a story on GMOs on January 17, 2016 (See: “Food fight over GMOs” – YouTube (10:30) published by CBS Sunday Morning on January 17, 2016). Right from the beginning, the reporting was clearly, once again, extremely deficient of proper research – but this was overshadowed by the obvious bias in favor of GMOs.

The story opened with a brief one-sided look at Hawai’i and GM papayas. The reporter asked a papaya grower if they were safe and the grower assured him that they were because he (and his children) had been consuming them for 20 years. The reporter accepted that as proof that they were therefore safe by insinuation because he didn’t offer anything from his extensive research to counter that assertion.

Had the reporter been competent and unbiased he could have pointed out that a person can also smoke cigarettes for over twenty years before being diagnosed with lung cancer. Monsanto said for decades that PCBs were safe as well, among other things. Look how well all that turned out. It’s not enough to say people have been eating them and we haven’t seen any harm from that consumption, and so therefore they are safe. That’s not science, except perhaps in one sense: in many scientific safety studies, lab rats and guinea pigs are used for experiments. In the case of unlabeled GMOs, consumers are unknowingly consuming them and are – without their consent or knowledge – engaging in an experiment about GMOs. This is why people (scientists included) have said for decades that “we are the guinea pigs” or the “lab rats” or something like the “experiment is on us.”

The reality is that no one knows what the long term consequences of the various GMO brands are or will be by those who consume them. Asserting that they are safe because they have been consumed by certain people for a period of time isn’t scientific evidence, it’s an anecdotal story – it’s not based on research, or evidence; it is a personal account of one person’s point of view.

I am compelled to point out that some people say that after changing their diet by eliminating GMO foods, health issues that they have suffered from for years have disappeared. These are quickly dismissed as merely anecdotal tales without any merit at all by pro-GMO supporters. But those same supporters of GMOs use this pseudoscientific method to claim that GMOs are safe. We see that in this video.

How does one determine if a GMO food is safe or not? Usually an assessment would require at least an epidemiological study; however, “There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of   GM food consumption on human health.” (Angelika Hilbeck et al, “No Scientific consensus on GMO safety,” Environmental Services Europe; January 24, 2015)

Currently there is no way for this to happen because GMO labels are necessary for traceability. In other words, at a minimum labels are necessary so that any adverse health events over a period of time in a given population can be traced to a particular cause – in this context, a GMO brand or brands. The authors of that publication continue:

“As GM foods and other products are not monitored or labelled after release in North America, a major producer and consumer of GM crops, it is scientifically impossible to trace, let alone study, patterns of consumption and their impacts. Therefore, claims that GM foods are safe for human health based on the experience of North American populations have no scientific basis.”

Next, the reporter is delighted to inform America about the problem of ringspot virus in the papayas, and how “devastating” it was to the export of papayas. However, the reporter is guilty of presenting misinformation by omission; according to Claire Robinson (GMWatch), “papaya production today  is only about half what it was in the 1980s.”

By omitting details, the reporter paints a picture of ‘Papaya Perfection’ where all is well economically and papayas are safe to eat.

Claire continues: “Critics, in fact, contend that the virus problem could have been managed without any use of GMO papaya and they see its widespread market rejection as an important factor in the marked decline of Hawaiian papaya production. According to Melanie Bondera, a board member for the NGO Hawaii Seed, GMO promoters are “not looking at the bigger picture of the economic problems that come with it – the cross-contaminationthe market loss, the testing costs… The bottom line is the GMO papaya has never sold for as much as the non-GMO papaya.” (“Errors, fraud, lies, and William Saletan – Part 3: GM papaya: Saviour or health risk?” By Claire Robinson, GMWatch; July 27, 2015).

Claire Robinson points out that a non-GMO papaya which is also resistant to the ringspot virus can be grown but there is no publicity about this; she links to a study  which states, “Good quality marketable fruit were produced on these plants. Application of these results should lead to restoration of the papaya industry in virus-infested regions of the Philippines and worldwide.” (“Papaya ringspot virus resistance in Carica papaya via introgression from Vasconcellea quercifolia,” by S. V. Siar et al., Euphytica, September 2011, Volume 181, Issue 2, pp 159-168 [Online version provided by Springer].

There is also no mention of any of the negative environmental impacts of these transgenic crops; one study concluded that there is negative effect on the soil: “Our results suggest that transgenic papaya could alter chemical properties, enzyme activities, and microbial communities in soil.” (Source: “Field Released Transgenic Papaya Affects Microbial Communities and Enzyme Activities in Soil,” by X. D. Wei, H. L. Zou, L. M. Chu, B. Liao, C. M. Ye and C. Y. Lan, published in Plant and Soil, July 2006, Volume 285, Issue 1, pp 347-358).

There is no mention at all about how these transgenic trees have cross-pollinated with other native organic trees, and consequently, organic growers no longer have non-GMO papaya trees – against their will.

So we have anecdotal claims of safety presented as factual proof of safety; no mention of the current economic status of the export of GMO papayas (or any mention of which countries refuse the GMO fruits) thus portraying them as money miracles; no mention at all of the alternative to GMO papayas to combat ringspot virus; no mention at all of any real or potential negative environmental adverse events. (And although it was reported that Professor Gonsalves’ former place of employment was at Cornell University, there was no mention of Cornell Alliance which is associated with Cornell University. The Cornell Alliance received $5.6 million from GMO lover Bill Gates to help promote more GMOs). Americans deserve to know if the lead scientist in this reporter’s biased story has any bias in favor of GMOs and is associated with a pro-GMO university and organization.

The ten-minute video has already misrepresented several truths within the first two minutes.

Moving on, the reporter says that the majority of GM crops grown in America are either HT or IR or both (HT – herbicide tolerant, most notably RoundUp Ready crops and IR is insect resistant). Well, he did get that correct, but he didn’t mention that the majority of GM crops are dedicated to animal feed and re-processed as biofuel. That would be helpful for Americans to have some perspective, and it would have taken very little effort to add that.

He also fails to point out that RoundUp is used on the majority of HT crops (such as GMO soy and corn brands) and that the active ingredient, glyphosate, is classified  by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) as a Group 2A probable carcinogen. (See page 78: “Monograph – Volume 112,” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer). Certainly that information is not only relevant but extraordinarily important for Americans to know.

He fails to mention the Superweeds that have grown and become problematic and an economic threat as well; he does not mention the Congressional hearings about this enormous problem (see here, here, and here.

The IR or insect resistant brands have genes from Cry proteins (such as Cry1Ab) from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) inserted into their DNA (Bt is a soil bacterium that has insecticidal properties). There are a variety of Cry proteins – “More than 270 different strains of Bt are described and more than 700 cry sequences that code for Cry proteins have been identified (Palma et al. 2014)” [see page 34: “Uncertainty and Knowledge Gaps related to Environmental Risk Assessment of GMOs,” by Lise Nordgård et al, GenØk Biosafety Centre; October 2015]

The reporter says that the use of IR crops “means farmers can dramatically reduce insecticide use.” But this claim has been refuted. (For example, see: Claims of Reduced Pesticide Use with GM Crops Are Baseless, New Study Shows,” by GMWatch, April 4, 2015).

He also leaves out the entire story of how the insects (such as the corn rootworm) have been shown to become resistant to the Cry proteins from the Bt insecticide that are present in every cell of every corn kernel (taking corn as an example). There is not a mention of any of the many studies about Bt that at a minimum suggest that the use of Cry proteins from Bt in GM crops is not without some problems. There is a failure by this reporter to include the effect of Bt Cry proteins on off-target species – including amphibians.

After neglecting to inform the American people about some relevant facts, (hey, why should Americans be informed – right? That’s the biotech way!), the reporter wonders, “So given all that, why are so many people so opposed to GMOs?”

Well there are many reasons, and this inadequate report is one of them.  When mainstream media starts to honestly and fully give detailed, consistent, unbiased and well-researched information about GMOs, then that will be one problem solved. Why are so many people opposed to GMOs? Because the more people learn, the less they want GMOs in their world, much less in their diet.

Then Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant complains that patents on his seed products are necessary because “We spend a billion and a half dollars a year on research and development.”

Okay Reporter Man, now is your chance to shine! Ask him why if they spent billions of dollars in the last two decades have they only come up with a handful of GM brands with only two major traits – and then ask him when are all those GMO promises going to be fulfilled – like feeding the world (aka solving global hunger), higher yield, and more.

But … no … the reporter lost a golden opportunity to act like a real journalist instead of a paid spokesperson for the biotech industry.

Next we see some footage of anti-GMO protesters on the street blocking traffic, wearing hazmat suits while pouring various processed food into a large pile. So, like it or not, that’s what the majority of Americans see and how the majority of Americans perceive anti-GMO activists. Keep that in mind.

The reporter drones on until he starts to spew the Great Industry Talking Points. He starts by asking a question that he already has a pre-set answer to: “The big question is: Is all this fear justified?”

Well, we are finally at the meat of it, aren’t we? Anti –GMO activists are “fear mongers” — c’mon Reporter Man, you are almost there, just come right out and say it.

America sees people in hazmat suits blocking traffic, being arrested and then the ever-rational Reporter Man denigrates an entire population of human beings by suggesting they are afraid, that they are afraid of silly little things and they shouldn’t worry their little heads. That’s how it goes, that’s what America sees, and that’s what Americans will remember.

See, the reporter insinuates, there is really nothing to fear because “88 percent of scientists say GMOs are safe.”  Um, Reporter Man, could you be a little more specific? Who are these scientists? 88% of how many?  The implication is that all scientists have been polled and of those that were, 88% think that GMOs are safe; he doesn’t divulge any information at all about this poll – because if he did, people would know it’s absurd.

The Pew Research Center conducted a poll  of  some AAAS scientists, and boy, isn’t that reliable on so many levels! First, AAAS stands for the American Association for the Advancement of Science and 3,748 of them were polled. It seems that the question was something like “Do you think that GMO foods are generally safe?” And of those, 88% are stupid enough to say “yes” without any scientific basis for saying so. Why? Because there are no requirements  for long-term chronic toxicity studies prior to approval and there are no requirements for any post-marketing studies to assess any potential adverse events on the health of those who consume them; there are none required for any environmental and sociological impacts; and there are no requirements to determine the socio-economic impacts (what happens when farmers are sued by Monsanto because pollen drifted from a GMO crop onto their non-GMO crops?).

An absence of evidence of harm does not prove that there is evidence of safety; and any scientist who thinks that is the case is either very stupid or just not telling the truth (to paraphrase David Suzuki).

Let’s be clear about this: GMOs are not one thing. They are things. They are multiple things. Therefore each brand should be tested for safety for long-term chronic toxicity – using legitimate independent scientific methods that are not influenced by the biotech industry.

Since that’s not happening, the notion that any percentage of scientists could say that GMOs are generally safe is nothing but a puff of air in a hurricane: it means absolutely nothing. It is meaningless, because legitimate independent long-term chronic toxicity scientific safety studies have not been done on every product to prove they are safe (and the absence of epidemiological studies, double blind controlled studies, and no requirements for post-marketing studies, etc. all reveal that the assertion that “GMOs are safe” is nothing more than pseudoscience). However, scientific studies have been done that demonstrate that at least in some cases, they are not safe.

Then we get to the really good stuff, Propaganda  101: “And prestigious scientific organizations — among them, the American Medical Association; the World Health Organization; and the National Academy of Sciences — all say hundreds of peer-reviewed studies confirm GMOs pose no danger to health.”

The simplest and easiest way to address these myths is to quote from “Who says GMOs are safe? (and who says they’re not),” by Claire Robinson, Beyond GM; December 8, 2014:

1. American Medical Association (AMA)

The AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health has issued a statement opposing GMO labeling. The statement does not claim GMOs are safe. It acknowledges “a small potential for adverse events… due mainly to horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity”. It therefore recommends mandatory safety assessments prior to release of GM foods – a system which, as the statement said, is not in place in the US.

2 . World Health Organization 

The WHO has indeed stated: “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”

But those who claim the WHO says GMOs are safe omit its preceding text: “Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.” Scientists on both sides of the GMO debate would agree with this statement.

The WHO also recommends that “adequate post market monitoring” is carried out to ensure the safety of GM foods. Yet such monitoring is not carried out anywhere in the world. This fact would explain the WHO’s statement that “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods.” It’s difficult to find such effects if you are not looking

3. The US National Academies of Science (NAS)

The NAS has not issued any blanket claims of GMO safety. It did issue a report in which it analyzed a range of plant breeding techniques and concluded that GM posed a higher risk of introducing unintended changes into food than any other crop breeding method other than mutation breeding – a method in which plant genomes are bombarded with radiation or chemicals to induce mutations.

Many opponents of GMOs are also skeptical about the safety of mutation breeding, and in fact, the scientific jury is still out on the relative safety of these two methods. But the fact that mutation breeding slipped under the regulatory radar before scientists realized its potential harmful effects (such as the production of new toxins and allergens) doesn’t justify failing to regulate and safety test GMOs. To argue that it does is equivalent to saying that because lead was once allowed in paint and petrol, we should not doubt the safety of other heavy metals, such as mercury.

So – thanks Reporter Man! You’ve have done a real disservice to America by failing to do proper research and instead spew industry talking points. And as for those “hundreds of peer-reviewed studies” — well, that is more likely than not hogwash as well. Since you didn’t provide any more information, you may as well just have pulled a monkey out of your butt and said it was the Easter bunny: it’s just industry spin, fluff, propaganda and it means nothing.  It is possible, but not certain, that he is referring to: “An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research,” (Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2013:1-12. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595). If the reporter is referring to that, he is guilty of spreading false information again because “The review suffers from important omissions, fails to show GMOs are safe, and provides evidence of risk for some GMOs”.

Again, “hundreds of peer-reviewed studies” don’t mean a thing if those studies do not include long-term chronic toxicity studies on every brand by independent researchers.

Then Pamela Ronald, who in the eyes of many has no credibility (she had two scientific papers retracted in 2013 – that’s TWO), says: “There’s not a single instance of harm to human health or the environment using genetically-engineered crops.”

This is just insane spin because she is clearly insinuating that in her perception, there is no evidence that they are not safe so therefore they are safe. As a wise man said: “‘There’s no evidence that it isn’t’ safe to eat GMOs? What kind of science is that? Many experts would disagree, and they would certainly object to a safety standard for a new technology that is content with the epidemiologically shabby construct that if there’s no evidence something isn’t safe, it must be safe.” (See: “The War on Genetically-Modified-Food Critics: Et tu, National Geographic?” by Timothy Wise, Food Tank; February 27, 2015).

Ronald does not indicate that since there are no labels, there is no way to trace adverse health events and correlate them to specific brands through epidemiological studies and find causation from those correlations. Since there are no epidemiological studies because there is no traceability because there are no labels, asserting that they are safe, or insinuating that they are by omitting these important and relevant points, makes her look foolish. It is also dishonest.

“The right to search for truth implies also a duty one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”  — Albert Einstein.

When information is withheld, either by a scientist or by a journalist, they both violate a fundamental ethical agreement between human beings: don’t mislead people, don’t lie.

“Scientists should not only tell what’s true but make clear all the information that is required for somebody else who is intelligent to make up their mind about a technology.” — Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize winner

As for her claim that there is not a “single instance of harm to … the environment using genetically-engineered crops,” it is surreal that the reporter did not challenge, in any way, this absolutely false assertion. He could have mentioned Superweeds, or cross-contamination, or the presence of glyphosate in water supplies, such as streams, and many other environmental issues connected to GM crops. (The inclusion of glyphosate to demonstrate evidence of environmental harm related to GMOs is valid since RoundUp or other glyphosate-based products are used on the majority of GM crops and the reason they are modified is to withstand applications of these products).

Here is a short list:

Are GM Crops Better for the Environment?” published by: the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN); May 2015. (43 pages) Report 2

Superweeds: How Biotech Crops Bolster the Pesticide Industry,” published by: Food & Water Watch; July 2013

The Rise of Superweeds – and What to Do about It,” published by: the Union of Concerned Scientists; December 2013

Herbicide-resistant genetically modified plants and sustainability,” published by: The Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board (Editor-in-chief: Sissel Rogne & Editor: Audrun Utskarpen); August 2014

Herbicide Tolerance in GM Crops: Why the world should be ready to ready to Round Up glyphosate,” by Pete Riley et al., published by Greenpeace International; June 2011

Bayer’s Double Trouble: When genetically engineered rice meets a toxic pesticide,” by Greenpeace International; March, 2009

GM Crops: No Panacea to Food Security – A briefing paper on the MYTH that GM crops are necessary to feed India’s growing population Greenpeace India,” by Neha Saiga, Greenpeace India; February 20, 2013

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): The significance of gene flow through pollen transfer,” by Katie Eastham and Jeremy Sweet, European Environment Agency; 2002

Escape of Genetically Engineered Organisms and Unintentional Transboundary Movements: Overview of Recent and Upcoming Cases and the new Risks from SynBio Organisms,” by Andreas Bauer-Panskus, Sylvia Hamberger, Mirjam Schumm & Christoph Then, published by: Testbiotech; September, 2015.

Transgene Escape – Global Atlas of Uncontrolled Spread of Genetically Engineered Plants,” by Andreas Bauer-Panskus, Sylvia Hamberger and Christoph Then, published by Testbiotech; November, 2013

Teratogenic Effects of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides: Divergence of Regulatory Decisions from Scientific Evidence,” by Michael Antoniou et al. published by: Environmental and Analytical Toxicology, Toxicology of Pesticides; 2012, S:4

Uncertainty and Knowledge Gaps related to Environmental Risk Assessment of GMOs,” by Lise Nordgård et al, GenØk Biosafety Centre; October 2015

Genetically Modified Organisms, Consumers, Food Safety and the Environment- FAO Ethics Series,” published by: the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FOA); Rome, 2001

Genetically Modified Living Organisms and the Precautionary Principle,” by Professor Dr. Ludwig Krämer; commissioned by: Testbiotech. September 2013

Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil,” by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society; May 19, 2010

Monarchs in Peril: Herbicide-Resistant Crops and the Decline of Monarch Butterflies in North America,” by Bill Freese and Martha Crouch, PhD, Center for Food Safety; February, 2015

… Okay, that’s the short  list

Then Ronald loses even more credibility by trying to say that hybridization is like genetic modification using modern biotechnology. This is just nonsense, and any scientist who puts these two vastly different subjects into the same category should be ashamed.

Next, we heard from Marcia Ishii-Eiteman who says, “Americans have a right to know what’s in our food and the right to know how it’s been grown.”

Pretty straight forward right? Not to THIS reporter. Because he said: “And Ishii-Eiteman has a surprising ally: The CEO of Monsanto.”

NO.

NO.

NO.

NO.

This is completely wrong; this is a total mischaracterization of what she said.

Monsanto is not an “ally”; it is an enemy to labeling. It is THE enemy of labeling. Anyone who is familiar with this subject in even the slightest way could not believe this reporter doesn’t understand this. Monsanto has spent millions of dollars through advertising and lobbying and more to shut down every attempt at GMO food labels. What did Grant actually say?

“We’ve been for voluntary labeling for quite some time.”

Voluntary labeling equals NO labeling. Period. The FDA’s policy of voluntary GMO labeling is over 14 years old and since then not one company has ever put a label on any GMO product or GMO derivative. (Although it is true that Campbell’s has recently announced its intention to do so – under certain conditions).

And really America: has Hugh Grant been honest with the American people so far? Think about.

Next the Reporter Man says: “What no one disputes is this: The controversy over GMOs is creating an ever-lengthening approval process in countries around the world.”

I dispute it! It is not the “controversy over GMOs” that is causing this; it is the increasing number of scientific studies that show adverse events to health, the environment, to the socio-economic impact of local communities and more. Since when did legitimate independent science become “controversial” –? Oh yeah, when the biotech industry and its supporters started to attack independent scientists whose findings were contrary to the spin and disinformation campaigns of the biotech industry and its supporters.

Then the Reporter Man talks about the “possibilities” of Golden Rice: “Take vitamin-enriched Golden Rice, which could help 250 million children who have a sometimes-fatal vitamin A deficiency.” Well, let’s start with this:

 ‘Golden’ rice has been in development for almost 20 years and has still not made any impact on the prevalence of VAD (vitamin A deficiency). Not only has it failed to have any impact on VAD while using money and resources that could have been given to real solutions, it is also environmentally irresponsible. Genetically Engineered (GE) crops have, and will continue to contaminate neighbouring crops wherever they are released.

Source: “Golden Rice’s Lack of Lustre – Addressing Vitamin A Deficiency Without Genetic Engineering,” by Greenpeace International. November 9, 2010

And then this:

It is astonishing that so far, there are no data available on the concentration of substances, metabolites and gene expression, and no studies were conducted such as testing for subchronic toxicity and immunogenic or antinutritive effects. No publications are available in which the substances and metabolic profiles of Golden Rice are compared to those of conventional parent plants.

… All in all, the communication strategies used by many proponents of the Golden Rice project are ethically questionable, propagandistic and alarmist. They clearly contradict the humanitarian goals of the project and impede factual debate. This nearly hysterical rhetoric was continuously exaggerated within the last years. Its most recent peak of absurdity was reached by a campaign “Golden Rice Now.”

Source: “Golden Lies: No Credibility for Golden Rice Campaign,” by Christoph Then, published by: Testbiotech; January 15, 2014

This assertion that somehow Golden Rice will be the solution to a nutritional deficiency that goes well beyond Vitamin A is mere propaganda – it does nothing at all to address the complex issue of this subject and yet it is constantly presented that way. It is also presented in a way that it becomes a tool to attack anti-GMO activists with emotional blackmail using such phrases as: “If you do not support Golden Rice you are responsible for blinding millions of children” and then this extends to: “By not supporting GMOs you are condemning millions of people to die of starvation.”

Okay – what was that accusation about anti-GMO activists being “fear-mongers” again?

Then we get to the Great Lie: GMOs are necessary to feed the world; or as the Reporter Man phrases it: “their [GMOs] biggest impact could one day be on the increasingly hungry third world.”

I’ve got some news for you chief: GMOs already have had a big impact on the world. Just ask the families of the nearly 300,000 farmer suicide deaths in India associated with GMO Bt cotton. Now that is an impact.

(To see more information on why the claim that GMOs are or will be necessary to feed the world is a myth, see here).

Finally the torture of this report is almost at an end: “Faced with increasing anti-GMO public opinion, the push to ban them is accelerating in rich countries where there is so much food that obesity is a major health issue.”

An increase in “anti-GMO public opinion” is due to the fact that more and more people are becoming aware of, and having access to, information about GMOs – including the many negative consequences of the application of GMOs in agriculture in real-world conditions – something completely absent from this report.

The reporter closes with this statement by professor Gonsalves: “We in the United States, we’re rich, we have a lot of food, no problem. But a lot of these people in these other countries don’t have much food. And that reaction is really harming the people most in need.”

This is the absolute worst way to end this “news segment” because its premise is completely false and the charge that an anti-GMO reaction is harming people “most in need” is the antithesis of the effect the GMOs have already had on populations around the world. It is because of those negative realities which have already harmed people and the environment that this “anti-GMO public opinion” has become more powerful as the number of people who become aware of the truth continue to increase despite reports like this one.

In the end, this report is typical coverage by the mainstream mass-media in the United States regarding the GMO issue: there is a news blackout on many stories about this subject coupled by biased reports in favor of GMOs which spread disinformation either directly or through omission. This is a disservice to the citizens of the United States who do not know anything or very little about this subject and who will now be completely misinformed instead.


Further reading & Research:

 

Our Approach to GMOs,” by members of the advisory board at GMO Science (undated)

The So-Called Scientific ‘Consensus’ – Why the Debate on GMO Safety Is Not Over,” Published by: Food & Water Watch, September 2014 (8 pages)

Coexistence” With GMOs Is Impossible,” – By Russ (Blog) Volatility; March 8, 2014

Field Released Transgenic Papaya Affects Microbial Communities and Enzyme Activities in Soil,” by X. D. Wei, H. L. Zou, L. M. Chu, B. Liao, C. M. Ye and C. Y. Lan, published in Plant and Soil, July 2006, Volume 285, Issue 1, pp 347-358

Field released transgenic papaya effect on soil microbial communities and enzyme activities,” by Xiang-dong Wei, Hui-ling Zou, Liao Bin, Ye Chang-min, and Lan Chong-yu. Published by: the Journal of Environmental Sciences, July 2006, Volume 18, No. 4, pp 734-740

Errors, fraud, lies, and William Saletan – Part 3: GM papaya: Saviour or health risk?” by Claire Robinson, GMWatch; July 27, 2015

Resistance of transgenic papaya plants to Papaya ringspot virus,” by S. Kertbundit, N. Pongtanom, P. Ruanjan, D. Chantasingh, A. Tanwanchai, S. Panyim and M. Juříček. Published in: Biologia Plantarum, June 2007, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 333-339

Cornell gets $5.6 million to ‘depolarize’ GMO debate,” by GMWatch; August 30, 2014

Superweeds: How Biotech Crops Bolster the Pesticide Industry,” published by: Food & Water Watch; July 2013. (18 pages)

The Rise of Superweeds – and What to Do about It,” published by: the Union of Concerned Scientists; December 2013. (8 pages)

Herbicide-resistant genetically modified plants and sustainability,” published by: The Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board (Editor-in-chief: Sissel Rogne & Editor: Audrun Utskarpen); August 2014 (72 pages)

Herbicide Tolerance in GM Crops: Why the world should be ready to ready to Round Up glyphosate,” by Pete Riley et al., published by Greenpeace International; June 2011 (44 pages)

Are Superweeds and Outgrowth of USDA Biotech Policy? Part 1 of 3, YouTube (36:20) published by House Resource [.] org

Are Superweeds and Outgrowth of USDA Biotech Policy? Part 2 of 3, YouTube (19:06) published by House Resource [.] org

Are Superweeds and Outgrowth of USDA Biotech Policy? Part 3 of 3, YouTube (9:26) published by House Resource [.] org

Testimony Before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee,” by William Freese, Science Policy Analyst Center for Food Safety; September 30, 2010 superweeds (10 pages)

Response to Questions with Regard to Herbicide-Resistant Weeds Following Testimony,” by William Freese Center for Food Safety September 30, 2010 (26 pages)

Are Superweeds an Outgrowth of USDA Biotechnology,” Policy Statement of Andrew C. Kimbrell, Director – Center for Food Safety; House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy. July 28, 2010. (7 pages)

Are Superweeds an Outgrowth of USDA Biotechnology,” Testimony Troy Roush [Experienced GMO and non-GMO farmer]; House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy. July 28, 2010. (3 pages)

GM Contamination Report 2005 – A Review of Cases of Contamination, Illegal Planting and Negative side effects of Genetically Modified Organisms,” by GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace International. March 8, 2006 (33 pages)

Transgene Escape – Global Atlas of Uncontrolled Spread of Genetically Engineered Plants,” by Andreas Bauer-Panskus, Sylvia Hamberger and Christoph Then, published by Testbiotech; November, 2013 (53 pages)

Escape of Genetically Engineered Organisms and Unintentional Transboundary Movements: Overview of Recent and Upcoming Cases and the new Risks from SynBio Organisms,” by Andreas Bauer-Panskus, Sylvia Hamberger, Mirjam Schumm & Christoph Then, published by: Testbiotech; September, 2015. (37 pages)

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): The significance of gene flow through pollen transfer,” By Katie Eastham and Jeremy Sweet, European Environment Agency; 2002 (75 pages)

The Myth of Coexistence: Why Transgenic Crops Are Not Compatible With Agroecologically Based Systems of Production,” by Miguel A. Altieri, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No. 4, August 2005, 361-371 (11 pages)

Corn Rootworm Bt Resistant Corn,” by SourceWatch

Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) Studies,” published by GMO Free USA [a list of several studies about Bt]

New Plant Pest Caused by Genetically Engineered Corn – The Spread of the Western Bean Cutworm Causes Massive Damage in the US,” by Christoph Then; Testbiotech Report, prepared for Greenpeace Germany. March 2010.  (21 pages)

Field-evolved resistance by western corn rootworm to multiple Bacillus thuringiensis toxins in transgenic maize,” by Aaron J. Gassmann et al, PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), vol. 111 no. 14, 5141–5146 (January 27, 2014)

GM Bt corn has diminishing success at fighting off insect pest – study,” by GMWatch, May 26, 2015

Commercial Formulations of Bt Toxins Lethal to Amphibians,” by Dr. Eva Sirinathsinghji, Institute of Science in Society; January 14, 2016

No sustainable GMO solution to Bt-resistant pests,” by Claire Robinson, GMWatch; January 14, 2016

Mark Ruffalo: ‘Monsanto Chief is Horrible,’” by Mark Ruffalo, Ecowatch; December 4, 2015 [Please note: there are two pages to this article]

GMOs are not necessary to feed the World,” by Jeff Kirkpatrick, Ban GMOs Now; January 7, 2016

The failed promises of GMOs: all but one,” by Jeff Kirkpatrick, Ban GMOs Now; January 13, 2016

Failure to Yield – Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops,” by Doug Gurian-Sherman, published by: Union of Concerned Scientists; April 2009 (50 pages)

How We Read Scientific Studies,” by members of GMO Science

GMO SCIENCE – STUDIES & RESEARCH – published by GMO Free USA; (undated, a list that is updated as needed)

Adverse Impacts of Transgenic Crops/Foods: A Compilation of Scientific References with Abstracts,” Compiled by Kavitha Kuruganti, Coalition for a GM-Free India; March, 2013 (184 pages)

Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods,” by members of GMO Science; December 28, 2015

Rubber-Stamped Regulation: The Inadequate Oversight of Genetically Engineered Plants and Animals in the United States,” By Genna Reed, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Volume 14, Issue 3; 2014 (12 pages)

Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers – a Report by the Center for Food Safety & Save our Seeds,” by Bill Freese & George Kimbrell (Contributing researchers, writers, and editors: Sam Cohen, Hudson Kingston, Sharon Perrone, Abigail Seiler, Cristina Stella, and Paige Tomaselli). 2013 (50 pages)

Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers,” Published by: the Center for Food Safety; 2005. (80 pages)

Uncertainty and Knowledge Gaps related to Environmental Risk Assessment of GMOs,” by Lise Nordgård et al, GenØk Biosafety Centre; October 2015 (167 pages)

Socio-Economic Considerations in GMO Decision-Making,” by Georgina Catacora-Vargas, GenØk-Centre for Biosafety; September 2012 (6 pages)

Social Impacts of GM Crops in Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review,” by Klara Fischer et al, Sustainability 2015, 7(7), 8598-8620; (published July 2, 2015)

Science that is hard to swallow,” by Fred Hiatt, published by: The Washington Post; February 8, 2015

Who says GMOs are safe? (and who says they’re not),” by Claire Robinson, Beyond GM; December 8, 2014

GMO Myths and Truths – 2.3 Myth: The Nicolia review compiles 1700+ studies showing that GMOs are safe,” an excerpt from “GMO Myths and Truths 2nd Edition,” by John Fagan PhD, Michael Antoniou PhD, and Claire Robinson MPhil; published by: Earth Open Source (2014)

Can the Scientific Reputation of Pamela Ronald, Public Face of GMOs, Be Salvaged?” by Jonathan Latham, PhD, Independent Science News; November 12, 2013

The War on Genetically-Modified-Food Critics: Et tu, National Geographic?” by Timothy Wise (Director of the Research and Policy Program at the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University), Food Tank; February 27, 2015

Are GM Crops Better for the Environment?” published by: the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN); May 2015. (43 pages) Report 2

Genetic Engineering is Very Different than Traditional Breeding,” by Belinda Martineau, Biotech Salon; October 16, 2015

Genetic Engineering is not an Extension of Conventional Plant Breeding; How Genetic Engineering Differs From Conventional Breeding, Hybridization, Wide Crosses and Horizontal Gene Transfer,” by Michael K. Hansen, Ph.D., Consumers Union January, 2000. (15 pages)

Genetically engineered organisms and agriculture: The difference between conventional breeding and genetic engineering,” by Testbiotech; (undated)

The Two Versions of the DARK Act,” by Russ, Volatility (Blog); January 12, 2016

Monsanto Co: Congressional Committees,” by OpenSecrets

Lobbying by Anti-Labeling Groups Tops $75M,” by Libby Foley EWG (Environmental Working Group); December 8, 2015

The GMO Issue: False Claims, Pseudo Analysis and a Politically Motivated Agenda,” by Colin Todhunter, CounterPunch; December 25, 2015

Monsanto Double Standards and the Crumbling ‘Scientific Myths’ of the GMO Biotech Sector,” by Colin Todhunter, Global Research; May 19, 2014

The Great GMO Legitimation Crisis,” by Colin Todhunter, East by Northwest; March 21, 2015

Golden Rice’s Lack of Lustre – Addressing Vitamin A Deficiency Without Genetic Engineering,” by Greenpeace International. November 9, 2010

Golden Lies: No Credibility for Golden Rice Campaign,” by Christoph Then, published by: Testbiotech; January 15, 2014 (18 Pages)

Golden Lies: The Seed Industry’s Questionable Golden Rice Project,” by Dr. Christoph Then (Testbiotech), published by Testbiotech and Foodwatch; January 2012 (32 pages)

Seed Monopolies, GMOs and Farmer Suicides in India – A response to Nature,” by Dr. Vandana Shiva, Navdanya’s Diary; November 12, 2013

Genetic Engineering and Food Sovereignty: Sustainable Agriculture is the Only Option to Feed the World (Threats by GM-Agriculture),” Essays by various Authors, by Church Development Service (EED) and Partners. 2009 (142 pages)

Glyphosate Herbicide Found in Many Midwestern Streams, Antibiotics Not Common,” by USGS (U.S. Geological Survey); August 4, 2015

Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil,” by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society; May 19, 2010

Monarchs in Peril: Herbicide-Resistant Crops and the Decline of Monarch Butterflies in North America,” by Bill Freese and Martha Crouch, PhD, Center for Food Safety; February, 2015

GM Contamination Register Report,” by Greenpeace International; February 19, 2007 (24 pages)

Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods,” by William Freese and David Schubert, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews – Vol. 21, November 2004. (27 pages)

Genetically Modified Organisms, Consumers, Food Safety and the Environment- FAO Ethics Series,” published by: the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FOA); Rome, 2001(34 pages)

The Precautionary Principle Requires to be Interpreted Critically and Pre-emptively for its Proper Application to the Unique Risks of GM crops,” By Aruna Rodrigues, Third World Network. March – April, 2015 (59 pages)

Twenty Years of Failure – Why GM Crops Have Failed to Deliver on Their Promises,” Edited by Janet Cotter, Marco Contiero, Dirk Zimmermann and Justine Maillot; Greenpeace. November 2015 (40 pages)

Transformation-induced Mutations in Transgenic Plants: Analysis and Biosafety Implications,” by Allison Wilson, Jonathan Latham and Richard Steinbrecher, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews – Vol. 23, December 2006 (26 pages)

Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods,” by A. Dona and I. S. Arvanitoyannis, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49:164–175 (2009) [12 pages]

The Health Effects of Genetically Engineered Crops on San Luis Obispo County,” Compiled by Mike Zelina, Teresa Campbell, Andrew Christie, Mark Phillips, Nancy Reinstein, PhD, RD, Elizabeth Johnson, August, 2006 (59 pages)


 

सत्यमेव जयते – Satyameva Jayate

(Truth Ultimately Triumphs)

 

Re-posting is encouraged, provided the URL of the original is posted with attribution to the original author and all links are preserved to the referenced articles, reports, etc. on their respective websites.

 

Copyright © Jeff Kirkpatrick 2016 Ban GMOs Now All rights reserved.

One thought on “GMO Report by CBS: A Disservice to Americans

Comments are closed.