Contrary to what is spread, the adventure of altering the DNA of our food crops through the techniques of so-called genetic engineering (GI), has not been supported in science, rather, it has been dishonored. They have also violated the standards of science. They have even concealed these infractions through deception. Furthermore, the GI process; crops in particular, it has been described in such a way that it appears more natural and accurate than it actually is, and even the most basic facts of contemporary biology have been distorted to minimize the true risks of GI-transformed crops.
The GI-modified food adventure has critically depended on those hoaxes and would not have survived without them. Therefore, it is essential to expose these deceptions and that the truth is known.
In my article published inThe Day On May 18, I revealed how the key hoaxes came from the US government - and how this country has promoted GM crops, seed companies through GI techniques and boosted their business in world markets. In the following paragraphs I explain how other prominent institutions have contributed to this deception.
One of the biggest fictions is that there is consensus among scientific experts on the safety of transgenic crops. Therefore, the American Association for the Advancement of Science has stated that any reputable organization that has examined the scientific evidence has concluded that foods derived from these crops pose no greater risk than conventional foods. However, several reputable organizations, such as the Royal Society of Canada, the British Medical Association and the Australian Public Health Association do not share such an agreement; rather, they warn about possible risks.
Furthermore, those organizations that proclaim the harmlessness of GMOs basically rely on deception. Consider the case of the unforeseen novel toxins that GI can generate. To support the argument that transgenic foods do not imply additional or novel risks, an important report from the United States National Academy of Sciences argues that with conventional genetic improvement, similar risks can also be incurred. However, the authors could only cite one case for conventional agriculture (involving potatoes), which was later shown to be false. They asserted that the new potato, obtained by conventional non-transgenic methods, contained a novel toxic molecule that was not found in any of the parents, despite the fact that they did produce it; but these types of toxic substances were found in other potatoes.
The British Royal Society has also twisted the truth to make the public believe that GM crops do not present risks compared to conventional foods. For example, they argue that the latter can also produce unexpected effects. In a 2016 publication by the same organization, they show that all plant genomes frequently have insertions of viral and / or bacterial DNA - and that these insertions are similar to those generated by recombinant DNA techniques of the GI. Both assertions are false. While genes inserted into the genome via IG are always integrated into the plant genome, this rarely occurs with genes from viruses and bacteria. Furthermore, the rare insertions of viral genes into the plant genome remain inactive and are not combined with other sequences of viruses or bacteria, as is the case in recombinant IG constructs. The presence of bacterial genes is also restricted in plant genomes, and they are not active either. On the other hand, the genes and their combinations inserted through IG, in addition to impacting the phenotype in various ways, are artificially driven to hyper activity that can cause risky imbalances.
The aforementioned publication has also misled the research results. It claims that there has been no evidence of damage linked to any approved transgenic crop, despite several studies published in peer-reviewed journals showing otherwise. Moreover, the same society is aware of a study that shows harm and that the Royal Society itself tried to discredit. That study, conducted at the renowned Rowett Institute, questioned the safety of GM foods, reporting that the genetic engineering process itself can cause problems. Such a breakdown encouraged the editor of the prestigious magazineThe Lancet to reject the initiative of society, calling it unusual impertinence.The Lancetconsidered the study scientifically adequate and published it. The society ignored this study and asserted that there was no research to show that the GI process itself can cause differences in transgenic crops that can lead to harm.
My bookAltered genes, adulterated truth contains many examples of this type of unacceptable behavior from leading scientific journals and societies that have tried to hide or minimize the possible negative impacts of transgenic crops. Proponents of GM crops have been subverting science, while claiming to act on their behalf.
Source: La Jornada