Soy Mafia and GMO Assassins Aided and Abetted by Scientific American

you know the world burns when the mainstream mush periodicals selling themselves as specialty rags for the smart ones side with Monsanto, Bayer and all the other Colony/Community Collapse Poisoners!

[Note — A second Soy Mafia story on DV August 27 bright and early! Read IT here!!!]

Blending Faux-Contrived-Manufactured Neutrality Science Rags with the Corporate Capital Bottomline

We are doomed, those of us fighting schemes of the technologists, Mengele’s, media whores, the entire cabal of idiots who work for the poisoners. Again, all the work so many around the world have been doing on trying to stop the Franken-crops/Franken-foods/ Franken-species, the genetically-messed-with plants, bacteria, fish and mammals by the elite in the sciences and their paymasters.  This is the era of the death of the media, the dying last throes of independence. Anything goes, and the idea that if the corporations like Monsanto or Syngenta or ADM, or if philanthropists (sic)  like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or if governments, governmental bodies and paid-for universities say eating genetically engineered stuff is safe, then, by God, it has to be. And, if  anyone or any organization or any “body” of organizations and scientists and activists do dare to doubt those proclamations, well, they are idealists, Luddites, anti-Capitalists, or,  just recalcitrant fools, unable to see the light of the coming of the new age of engineered life.

So, when reading the latest Scientific American, an op-ed signed by the “editors,” lambasting those two states that have worked to just barely get GMO labeling, and then denigrating anyone who might claim GE or GMO foods are not safe, I understand the state of our agnotology, ignorance, lack of systems thinking, and the ability of most people to let the tides of bad things and wrongheaded profit-spearing time pass without a fight, well, we are sunk.

Ugly read, and not deep, nor is it inspirational writing, or cutting edge – just plain pulp — Here, that 650 word inglorious op-ed that says it all about the lack of thinking in the science writing community.

For the past 20 years Americans have been eating plants in which scientists have used modern tools to insert a gene here or tweak a gene there, helping the crops tolerate drought and resist herbicides. Around 70 percent of processed foods in the U.S. contain genetically modified ingredients.

Instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people’s health.

Bottom Feeders — Mainstream Rags

Not only should we not have to label foods and any product that has been bombed with genes from other species, sometimes with species outside of entire kingdoms for that species being “modified, we should be stopping this giant pitiful experiment of foods blasted with genes and gene turn-on and turn-off manipulators that allow for a plant to be drenched in pesticides and herbicides and still grow and produce, err, corn, wheat, soy.  We shouldn’t have to label since we should not have ever allowed for these poisons to enter our food web. And mother nature’s web in general!~

The problem with Scientific American, or science in general, is that they are wrong almost 100 percent of the time. They have zero ability to carry out any study worthy of science, looking at what just one compound new to mankind might do to humanity over many thousands of human lives. Additionally,  they have zero interest in and funding for the research to see what five compounds ingested or bioaccumulating might do; or what might the synergistic effects of 100 compounds new to mankind do, in isolation, or in concert, to babies, or kids, or old farts or us collectively.

Scientific American editors, like most in the Americas or Western World, have no concept of the number of people now in the USA and in other parts of the world who have FOOD intolerances, or allergies, or anaphylaxis reactions to the eight deadly major food allergens – milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, soy, wheat, corn, peanuts and treenuts. So, add to the mix GMO products, things in everything from soap to newsprint to razor glide strips to crackers to meat to ice cream to, well, NAME IT.

Snack Safely; Food Allergy; Third Age.

Soy Killers, and Corn too, and, well add … Gluten ….

And a Dash Here and There of Little Better Living Through Chemistry 

I’ve already written about soy, and, looking at the daft writing at Scientific American, they can’t even look beyond the broken tragedy of science without ethics, technology without precautionary principles. The current percentage of foods in stores with soy or soy-derived bizarre components is 75 percent of the total. Corn, well, make that 80 percent. This stuff, soy-derived crap, and that’s most GMO soy and soy derivatives that come about through massive chemical concocting, is in EVERYTHING, including on apples, and now, there is evidence that soy-fed chickens produce eggs that are toxic to those with soy allergies.

This experiment of GMO is way past any control group, any real scientific expediency. There are not ethics involved, no deep thinking, just the sexy crap of men and women in labs poking around and recombinant-tinkering with EVERYTHING to do with genomes and genetics and cross Frankenstein slicing.  But, here we go, with the APHIS approving a soybean genetically altered and enhanced and degraded by Bayer CropScience, another little Mengele group gets its way and the government agency tasked with health and safety, well, the word is “caved”:

The United States Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) this week granted non-regulated status to a new line of soybean, FG72, engineered by Bayer CropScience. The soybean is resistant to the herbicides glyphosate and isoxaflutole. The decision clears the way for the sale and use of the crop in the U.S. Isoxaflutole, which is a restricted-use pesticide registered for use on corn, is identified as a probable human carcinogen on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s website. APHIS stated that its determination was based on a review of field and laboratory data submitted by Bayer, studies referenced by Bayer, peer-reviewed publications, and other relevant information. Its determination was also issued despite numerous complaints filed by environmental groups. Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, said approval of the FG72 soybean would likely lead to a significant increase in the use of isoxaflutole in the U.S. “We are poised to dramatically increase use of a probable human carcinogen,” he said, adding that the herbicide is toxic to aquatic organisms and non-target plants. APHIS, in a document addressing comments, said the general use of herbicides is “outside the scope” of its environmental assessment of the soybean, and acknowledged that approval would result in an increase in isoxaflutole use.

Try this exchange out for size, in New Zealand:

The relative risk of GM/non-GM consumption remains unevaluated; As yet, no epidemiological study has been conducted to determine these relative risks, and there may never be one. See the Australian Senator questions of Food Standards Australia New Zealand Chief Scientist, Paul Brent, in 2008,  here.

Senator SIEWERT—Okay. Just to clarify, there is no post-approval review of any of the products that you have already approved?

Dr. Brent— There is no post-market monitoring per se. There were attempts in the UK to do some research on this issue. The UK Food Safety Authority or agency actually commissioned some research to see how difficult it would be to do post-market monitoring on GM foods. I think the result of that and the consensus was that it was virtually impossible to do that sort of work. I think the UK spent almost £1 million on that research and it was dropped.

Senator SIEWERT—Thank you.

No Regulation of GMOs, But You Can’t Do Raw Milk in Your Community

The reality is SA does not do science and the editors give a crock worth’s of time to real concerted science and inquiry into the death of humanity thanks to GM/GE/GMO:

  • “EU Commission waters down GM regulation just as new research shows “safe” GM maize causes increased tumours, organ damage, and premature death”   20 September 2012
  • “Genetically modified Roundup Ready soy has been planted over vast areas of North and South America. Most of the crop is used to feed Europe’s and North America’s livestock.”

Inflated claims are made for the environmental sustainability of GM soy and the safety of the glyphosate herbicide it is engineered to tolerate.

But the 2010 report, “GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?”, co-authored by a group of international scientists coordinated by Earth Open Source, summarises over a hundred independent studies showing serious health and environmental hazards posed by GM Roundup Ready soy and glyphosate herbicide. Here.

  •  “The pesticide industry and EU regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s-1990s that Roundup, the world’s bestselling herbicide, causes birth defects – but they failed to inform the public.”

This report, co-authored by international scientists and researchers, reveals that industry’s own studies (including one commissioned by Monsanto) showed as long ago as the 1980s that Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate causes birth defects in laboratory animals.

The facts are these:

Industry has known from its own studies since the 1980s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses

Industry has known since 1993 that these effects also occur at lower and mid doses

The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations

The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations

The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year it signed off on the current approval of glyphosate.

But this information was not made public. On the contrary, the pesticide industry and Europe’s regulators have jointly misled the public with claims that glyphosate is safe. As a result, Roundup is used by home gardeners and local authorities on roadsides, in school grounds, and in other public areas, as well as in farmers’ fields.

  • “As recently as 2010, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, BVL, told the Commission there was “no evidence of teratogenicity” (ability to cause birth defects) for glyphosate.”  Here.

Science as Advocacy for Precautionary Principle

I grew up respecting science, or at least scientists. I ended up in the Sea of Cortes working on marine biology projects with scientists who were objective but human, caring but smart enough to get the information needed to make a case for any number of rationales why marine pollution, including non-point pollution, and over-fishing and certain slash and raze fishing techniques would eventually collapse specific species of fish and crustaceans, but would also eventually mess with the food webs and the ecosystems. They were right, and everyone else WAS wrong – count that media, corporations, the greedy takers, university deans, and the general public.

These were smart people in the 1960s and 1970s who had some sort of academic freedoms and scientific green light to explore and to do real research. Making larger theses around species collapses, well, that was and still is the RIGHT thing for scientists to do. The problem is the Peter Principle, the lowering IQ of Americans, the Corporate Greed Machinery of Gullible and Propaganda-producing Gulag Builders. You can’t do science and make the big picture real when politics rules and perception and concision rule the day.

Now, any independent scientist working on why monarch butterflies are collapsing (dying off), and then looking at that GMO corn and corn pollen and finding a link, well, those are not just quashed, but those individuals are vilified and sacked.

In the age of ConsumopithecusAnthropocene and Retailopithecus Erectus, all people, in or near or wanting to be part of the Vanguard are working for PROFITS over people, and there are no rights of nature, rights of free press, rights of the dignity of humankind in a culturally rich world of public good, public will and public work. They work for paymasters, and they “pimp, whore, and mercenary” themselves with a Faustian Bargain retching smirk into the very stuff they covet, the toys and jet-setting or goofy classless crap that make them the Rich and the Famous Buffoons of the World According to Crack-head Infotainment Deliverers.

You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train to Hell

Imagine Scientific American or National Geographic or Discovery Channel, or any number of faux scientific organs or publications being actually Neutral, or, scientifically robust and advocacy-based in terms of preservation and holding lines and grappling with the powers that be who shift and reform truth into lies which melt into fact and are then galvanized into accepted arguments for more and more decline, endangerment, extinction and sickness, all because they have never maybe had an ounce of humanity in all their corpuscles. It’s clear that they are running scared, but in a powerful way, as part of the elite and the One Percent and Nineteen Percent Sycophants and Little-Big Eichmann’s.

You think it’s really just 15 million USA inhabitants who have allergies to soy? Ya think? And, if you do any research and reading, you will see that soy is a bad thing environmentally and biophysically. It is a protein that hatches allergic intolerance. And, the kiss of death from the peanut-butter and jelly sandwich loving boyfriend is now the creeping debilitating allergies and food intolerances and synergistic responses to those Scientific American-endorsed GMO crops that dominate our food system.

We are cooked, now that we see the light of 9.5 billion Homo Consumption Sapiens and the complete fear of a species, a vast majority, fearing the minority, fearing the reckless ugly class of the rich and the elite and the vanguard. Dirty mouthed, broken spiritually, the Chosen Few and the Empty Secularists Looking for Gold, Black Energy, a Corer to the Center of the World, anything for profits, even mutant great-grandchildren, even bogs of nuclear waste next to cities, even newborns with jaws askew, an extra ear on the neck and the liver and one kidney now placed on the exterior at birth. All collateral externalities for the business contract, for money to move more money.

Press Polluters 

Listen to these polluters of the Press, propagandists of the periodicals. Imagine the putrid stance below, and the deadening dying words they deploy to make a pathetic profit-sucking point:

More such products are in the works, but only with public support and funding will they make their way to people’s plates. An international team of researchers has engineered a variety of cassava—a staple food for 600 million people—with 30 times the usual amount of beta-carotene and four times as much iron, as well as higher levels of protein and zinc. Another group of scientists has created corn with 169-fold the typical amount of beta-carotene, six times as much vitamin C and double the folate.

At press time, GMO-label legislation is pending in at least 20 states. Such debates are about so much more than slapping ostensibly simple labels on our food to satisfy a segment of American consumers. Ultimately, we are deciding whether we will continue to develop an immensely beneficial technology or shun it based on unfounded fears.

Do they cite “others,” those who do not fly with them from their East Coast shelters, who have real experience with people, not just the scientists? You think Scientific American speaks to Vandana Shiva? Author of how many books? What are the biggest dangers that GMOs pose to our environment and our health?

Vandana Shiva: They actually increase the toxification of our food system, even while claiming to be an alternative to chemicals. If you look at what has been achieved in the last two decades, you have herbicide-resistant crops and you have Bt-toxin crops. The former was intended to control weeds, the latter to control pests. What you have instead is the creation of super-weeds, which has increased the usage of herbicides and the creation of super-pests, which has increased the use of pesticides sprays. We have monitored the Bt cotton in India, 13-fold more pesticides are sprayed on Bt cotton.

That’s the first problem, but the second problem is now you have the toxins built into the plants. With the Bt toxin you’ve taken the genes that produce a toxin and put them into the plant. And because it’s such a clumsy technology, you don’t just put a toxic gene into the plant, you have to add antibiotic-resistant markers to separate the cells that absorbed the gene from those that didn’t. And because no plant wants an alien gene in it, like no organism wants an alien element, what you have to add is a viral promoter to pump up the expression of the gene.

So for every GMO you have three lethal transformations: A toxic gene whose impact you don’t know; antibiotic resistance markers—which already is a problem, given that antibiotic resistance is emerging both with farm animals and human beings; and if you have antibiotic resistance markers, you’re going to have gene jumping. I think the whole issue of the H1N1 virus, the fact that it had genes for three influenzas, human, chicken, pig—all of these crossings are becoming possible because of the crossing of genes across species barriers.

Or, check Shiva out at Bill Moyers.

Make Comments Where You Can:  5 Minutes Out of Your Genetically Altered Day!

At least there are a few good comments on the Scientific American piece, and here I leave with one:

A few of the dozen or more lies from GMO advocates. I got a whole bucket of these.

Lie: Consumers don’t need labels to avoid GMOs. All they need to do is buy certified organic products.

Truth: Food companies routinely and intentionally mislead consumers by labeling products “natural” in order to attract health-conscious consumers. Because the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) does not prohibit the use of the word “natural” on products containing GMOs, most consumers are fooled by this label. According to a recent poll by the Hartman group, 61 percent of respondents erroneously believed that the use of the word “natural” implies or suggests the absence of GMOs, versus 63 percent who correctly believed that the label “organic” means that a product is GMO-free. Food companies should be required, as they are in some 60 other countries, to clearly state that a product contains GMOs. If companies truly believe their GMO ingredients are perfectly safe, why spend millions to keep from having to label them?

Lie: GE foods pose no health safety risks.

Truth: GMOs have never been proven safe. The FDA requires no pre-market health safety studies, and the only long term peer-reviewed animal study conducted involving GMO corn sprayed with Monsanto’s Round Up herbicide, found massive tumors, organ failure and premature death in rats. In addition, a growing body of peer-reviewed animal studies have linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune disorders, birth defects, high infant mortality rates, fertility problems, and sterility. Clearly, more independent, long term studies are warranted. Until GMOs are proven unequivocally safe, they should be labeled so consumers can avoid them if they choose.

Lie: GE crops reduce the need for pesticides and herbicides.

Truth: GE crops have dramatically increased the use of herbicides and pesticides. According to a new study by Food and Water Watch, the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012” with the overall pesticide use rising by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010. The report follows another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook last year that found that overall pesticide use increased by 404 million pounds, or about 7%, from 1996 and 2011. The use of GE crops are now driving up the volume of toxic herbicides needed each year by about 25%.

Tell me what’s in my food!!!! Simply that.

Of course, the limitations of the vanguard tied to capital, exceptionalism, racist- patriarchal empire and manifest destiny breeding and their outpost and wild west mentality precipitating their circling of the wagons for their paymasters and the technologists, and the vapid coders and rotten-to-the core uneducators propelling collapse;  those skid greasers, the rotten effetes and classists, you THINK they’d ever take their broken theses to the logical end, an investigative end, one that is way beyond the lopped-off limpid scientific method of ameliorating and self-coding within their group think crew? Nah!

Just go to effing Face-Butt (Facebook), or surf the web and find how many people and groups of people are out there no longer of the orphan drug variety, seeking relief from the toxicity of soy, corn, gluten, and the GMOs. Do the research, the rolling up the sleeves and talk to us lowly individuals who are suffering the pains, the gut pains, the headaches, the fatigue, the skin flashes, the bone flogging, all the lovely stuff of poison entering one’s system. Sure, you think they’d do that at Scientific American?

Talk to these people, these non-Scientists:  Celiac, Disestive, Corn-free, Allergy Relief

Dissident Voice Already Carries These Stories

Go back to at DV for for links and such.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the nation’s primary source for information on exposure to industrial chemicals in the population. In the late 1970s, the agency began searching for exposure to heavy metals like lead and cadmium. Since then, the CDC has periodically conducted a census of American bodies called the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The agency uses the data for many things, ranging from children’s growth charts to obesity statistics—and, since 2001, to produce a study called the National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. The next such report, due out late this year, will include data on the prevalence of 228 of the most common environmental toxins.

Approximately 1,000 new chemicals are added every year to the 85,000 already on the federal registry. As Jane Houlihan, the senior vice president for research at the nonprofit watchdog organization Environmental Working Group, testified in Congress last year, “Companies are free to use almost any ingredient they choose in personal-care products, with no proof of safety required.” Houlihan argues that the FDA should claim the authority to oversee cosmetic safety, by requiring registration and testing of products and ingredients, making public-health-injury reports mandatory, and enforcing safety requirements—which is the way the agency oversees pesticides and food additives.

Oh, heck, read-read-read, and contact the REAL people, sad-sad Scientific American, please, do your homework, nerds, editors, vanguard, self-important Scientific (sic) American:

Soy allergies are on the rise for three reasons: the growing use of soy infant formula, the increase in soy-containing foods in grocery stores, and the possibility of the greater allergenicity of genetically modified soybeans.

According to Monsanto’s own tests, compared to normal soybeans, Roundup Ready genetically-engineered soybeans contain 29 percent less of the brain nutrient choline, and 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor—the potential allergen that interferes with protein digestion. Soy products are often prescribed and consumed for their phytoestrogen content, but according to the company’s tests, the genetically altered soybeans have lower levels of phenylalanine, an essential amino acid that affects levels of phytoestrogens. And levels of lectins, which are most likely the culprit in soy allergies, are nearly double in the genetically-engineered variety.

Read here.

Or try this one out for size, again, at DV:

A plant pathologist experienced in protecting against biological warfare recently warned the USDA of a new, self-replicating, micro-fungal virus-sized organism which may be causing spontaneous abortions in livestock, sudden death syndrome in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soy, and wilt in Monsanto’s RR corn.

Dr. Don M. Huber, who coordinates the Emergent Diseases and Pathogens committee of the American Phytopathological Society, as part of the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System, warned Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, that this pathogen threatens the US food and feed supply and can lead to the collapse of the US corn and soy export markets. Likewise, deregulation of GE alfalfa “could be a calamity,” he noted in his letter (reproduced in full below).

On January 27, Vilsack gave blanket approval to all genetically modified alfalfa. Following orders from President Obama, he also removed buffer zone requirements. This is seen as a deliberate move to contaminate natural crops and destroy the organic meat and dairy industry which relies on GM-free alfalfa. Such genetic contamination will give the biotech industry complete control over the nation’s fourth largest crop. It will also ease the transition to using GE-alfalfa as a biofuel.

“My letter to Secretary Vilsack was a request to allocate necessary resources to understand potential nutrient-disease interactions before making (in my opinion) an essentially irreversible decision on deregulation of RR alfalfa,” Huber told Food Freedom in an email.

Get the picture yet, about UnScientific Amerikan?

Finally, while getting this posting ready for “going live,” I checked out that bastion of Obama-love, Capitalism-Lust, Alas, the same old tired stuff on GMOs, without, of course, the deeper look at why we are cooked as a species because EVERYTHING we breathe, ingest and digest is tainted . . . cooked because  any consideration of the Scientific American op-ed writers at least questioning GE-splayed food, but instead saying GMOs are the best thing since Adam Smith.

Really? Read the “13 Lies GMO Labeling Opponents are Pushing to Keep People in the Dark.” Again, nothing about the giant experiment of young and old, in uteri or thirtysomething, in this giant experiment, a sadistic one aided and abetted by the Soy Mafia, getting EVERYTHING we eat or put on our bodies singed with the soy by-product. And, no mention of these two compelling issues by the mainstream so-called scientific community, as they sign their screeds with the pseudonym, “from the  editors of  Scientific American,” a rag to end all scientific rags.

Paul Haeder's been a teacher, social worker, newspaperman, environmental activist, and marginalized muckraker, union organizer. Paul's book, Reimagining Sanity: Voices Beyond the Echo Chamber (2016), looks at 10 years (now going on 17 years) of his writing at Dissident Voice. Read his musings at LA Progressive. Read (purchase) his short story collection, Wide Open Eyes: Surfacing from Vietnam now out, published by Cirque Journal. Here's his Amazon page with more published work Amazon. Read other articles by Paul, or visit Paul's website.

4 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Paul Haeder said on August 25th, 2013 at 4:09pm #

    A reply on the Alternet story:

    Are you aware of the link between GMO labeling laws and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)

    Obama is trying to pull a fast one by trying to get congress to fast track the TPP, It’s really, really important to pay attention to this one,

    Yes, the Transpacific Partnership has been in the leftist news, and Monsanto’s creed and CEO and legal buzzards are writing the ag portion of it, taking away all rights of smallholder farmers and indigenous farmers.

    Quote from Nation of Change:

    “Something is looming in the shadows that could help erode our basic rights and contaminate our food. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has the potential to become the biggest regional Free Trade Agreement in history, both in economic size and the ability to quietly add more countries in addition to those originally included. As of 2011 its 11 countries accounted for 30 percent of the world’s agricultural exports. Those countries are the US, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Viet Nam. Recently, Japan has joined the negotiations.

    Six hundred US corporate advisors have had input into the TPP. The draft text has not been made available to the public, press or policy makers. The level of secrecy around this agreement is unparalleled. The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark while representatives of US corporations are being consulted and privy to the details.

    The chief agricultural negotiator for the US is the former Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddique. If ratified the TPP would impose punishing regulations that give multinational corporations unprecedented right to demand taxpayer compensation for policies that corporations deem a barrier to their profits.”

  2. Peter Aleff said on August 26th, 2013 at 3:05am #

    To Paul Haeder: I just posted this at Alternet, in response to pablosharkman commenting on “13 Lies GMO Labeling Opponents Are Pushing to Keep People in the Dark” by Zack Kaldveer, with a link to this article here.

    The reason the Scientific American editors gave for not labeling GMO foods is that when this labeling was introduced in Europe, people did not buy the foods so labeled, and the manufacturers eliminated the GMO ingredients. This is why the Scientific American editors feel it is better to keep people in the dark so that the GMO industry can continue to do its thing behind the back of the consumers who become unwitting guinea pigs for the corporate masters. This is not an isolated incident but there is a parallel trend now in medical research to do away with the cornerstone of medical ethics which had been until recently the requirement for
    informed consent of the research subjects.

    Several recent medical experiments on restricting oxygen breathing help for premature babies were done without telling the parents anything about the known added risks because the researchers knew no parent could have agreed. Indeed, one of those studies killed 23 “extra” babies in the low-oxygen group, but its defenders continue to assert that obtaining parental consent would be a burden on the researchers who need the freedom to pursue their agenda.

    This is a return to the pre-Nuremberg-Code medical ethics that allowed Nazi doctors to run their experiments without the consent of their subjects, just as the Scientific American editors advocate now to run the uncontrolled GMO experiment without the knowledge and consent of the consumers whom they prefer to treat like disposable guinea pigs.

    Those editors should be ashamed of themselves for this abandoning of basic ethics, but it seems the concept of informed consent includes too much respect for the autonomy and intelligence of those subjected to the “benefits” of scientific manipulation behind their backs and against their will. No wonder the credibility of “scientific studies” has taken such a nosedive when many scientists willfully ignore all ethical obligations.

    So much for what I posted there. If you want to know more about the parallel breakdown of medical ethics and the proposed abolition of informed consent for medical experiments, see where you find also details about a Public Meeting called by the Office for Human Research Protection to be held on August 28 about this topic. That OHRP has caved in to the NIH extremists and is here putting on a show to pretend it cares.

    Good luck with your job search!

  3. Paul Haeder said on August 26th, 2013 at 10:24am #

    More rotten mainstream muck:

    . . . apologies for any duplication

    another horrible article featured in the NY TIMES:

    As of now, there are 460 posted comments, and no posted Letters to the Editor. I hope some of you particularly knowledgeable about the Golden Rice scam have or will contribute to the responses.

    Philip L. Bereano
    Professor Emeritus
    HCD&E Department
    Sieg Hall
    University of Washington
    Seattle, Wash. 98195

  4. Theresa said on September 8th, 2013 at 2:00pm #

    Conflict of interest at ACRE UK

    “ACRE is a statutory advisory committee appointed under section 124 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (the EPA) to provide advice to government regarding the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms. The committee works within the legislative framework set out by Part VI of the EPA and the GMO Deliberate Release Regulations 2002 which together implement Directive 2001/18/EC.

    ACRE advises the UK Government and Devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Our advice is given, in England, to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). In Scotland and Wales we advise the Scottish and Welsh ministers, while in Northern Ireland ACRE’s advice is received by the Department of the Environment. In addition to ministers, ACRE also advises the Health and Safety Executive on human health aspects of releasing GMOs in respect of England, Scotland and Wales.

    Further details are set out in the committee’s terms of reference and the framework document governing the working relationship between Defra and ACRE.

    Details of the membership of ACRE are available, together with the Register of Members’ Interests.”