Monsanto Apologists Attempt to Spin Shocking GMO Study

Establishment trots out “experts” in desperate bid to debunk fact that genetically-engineered food is a threat to humanity

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
September 21, 2012

A shocking new study conducted by French scientists which shows that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically modified corn suffered cancer and premature death has been met with a furious response from GMO apologists, who are desperately trying to cast doubt on the the study in an effort to discredit its findings.

50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a genetically modified corn produced by Monsanto – or those exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller – suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, causing them to die prematurely, the study found.

The study was conducted by French scientists at the University of Caen and published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.

Almost immediately after the findings were made public at a press conference in London, numerous other scientists rushed to Monsanto’s defense and claimed that the study was inaccurate.

“This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted,” said Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London. “The statistical methods are unconventional … and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip.”

However, the statistical methods are perfectly straightforward. Only 30 percent of males and 20 percent of females in the control group of rats that were not exposed to Monsanto’s products died prematurely – meaning males were 30 per cent more likely to die prematurely after eating Monsanto corn and females a whopping 50 per cent more likely to die.

   Sanders’ point about that particular breed of rat being prone to tumors treats the study as if it was conducted without using a control group of rats as a comparison, which is completely untrue.

David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge also tried to cast doubt on the accuracy of the study by highlighting that “The study’s untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors.”

That statement again completely ignores the fact that the rats, whether they developed tumors or not, were statistically far more likely to die prematurely if they were exposed to Monsanto products. The figures don’t lie.

Monsanto continually points to studies they claim confirm the safety of GMO food, and did so again in the aftermath of the latest French study. However, all of those studies did not go beyond the 90 day reporting period unlike the Caen study which tracked the health of the rats throughout their life span. It was only after four months that the tumors and organ damage suffered by the rats became evident.

Monsanto is already very much on the ropes in Europe and faces being kicked out of the European marketplace altogether if its reputation continues to be denigrated – that’s presumably why a gaggle of “experts” have been trotted out by the establishment Universities – a lot of which routinely receive huge grants from Monsanto itself – in order to desperately try and debunk the study.

      Meanwhile over in the United States, Monsanto and other GMO corporations have spent a combined sum of over $19 million dollars in an attempt to shoot down Proposition 37, the California bill that merely seeks to require genetically-modified foods and food ingredients to be labeled at the retail level.

If Monsanto and other GMO producers like DuPont, Bayer, Dow, BASF, and Syngenta are so confident that their genetically-engineered products are safe – why have they spent so much money attempting to prevent the public from knowing that they are in the food supply?

As Mike Adams points out, no matter how many apologists the establishment wheels out to cover-up for the fact that GMO represents an unparalleled environmental threat to humankind – the cat is already out of the bag.

“The era of GMO deception is history. A food revolution is upon us. And if governments will not halt the mass poisoning of our world by evil corporations, I have no doubt that the People will, by themselves, eventually invoke other necessary methods of halting this great evil,” he writes.

*********************

Monsanto, pesticide companies have now spent more than $19 million to kill Prop. 37

Ethan A. Huff  Natural News

September 21, 2012

(NaturalNews) The latest campaign finance disclosure records released by California’s Secretary of State reveal that the most evil corporation in the world, Monsanto, has forked over another $2.89 million to kill Proposition 37, the historic bill that, if passed, will require genetically-modified (GM) foods and food ingredients to be labeled at the retail level in California.

Combined with its other recent contributions of more than $4.2 million (http://www.naturalnews.com), Monsanto has now officially shelled out a total of more than $7.1 million to prevent consumers from knowing the truth about what is really contained in the foods they buy.

Along with Monsanto’s latest contributions were similar contributions by the other five of the “Big Six” pesticide firms — DuPont, Bayer, Dow, BASF, and Syngenta — which together gave more than $2.6 million to the No on 37 campaign as part of their most recent contributions. To date, the “Big Six” have collectively contributed nearly $20 million to keep Californians in the dark about GMOs.

    “Monsanto wants to buy this election so they can keep hiding what’s really in our food,” said Gary Ruskin, campaign manager for Yes on Prop. 37, about Monsanto’s efforts to stamp out the potential for mandating food transparency. “(But) they are on the losing side of history. Californians want the right to know what’s in our food, and we will win it.”

Most of the funding for ‘No on 37′ is coming from GMO companies not even located in California

Interestingly, none of the “Big Six” pesticide companies are even located in California, which just goes to show how far-reaching the scope of Prop. 37 will be once it is passed. Only one of the top ten antagonists in the fight for honesty in food labeling, Nestle USA, is based out of California, and even this company has its roots overseas in Switzerland.

Below is a list of the top ten contributors to the No on 37 campaign, which is trying to stop GMO labeling in California:

1) Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO, $7,100,500
2) E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., Washington, DC, $4,900,000
3) BASF Plant Science, Research Triangle Park, NC, $2,000,000
4) Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC, $2,000,000
5) Dow Agrosciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN, $2,000,000
6) PepsiCo, Inc., Purchase, NY, $1,716,300
7) Nestle USA, Inc., Glendale, CA, $1,169,400
8) Coca-Cola North America, Atlanta, GA, $1,164,400
9) ConAgra Foods, Omaha, NE, $1,076,700
10) Syngenta Corporation, Washington, DC, $1,000,000

       As you will notice, every single one of these companies has a critical stake in making sure that you do not know what is in the food you eat, because every single one of these companies either produces GMOs or uses GMOs in their product formulations.

If GMO labeling is mandated in California, the “Big Six” will lose significant market share as many large food companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi will have to either reformulate their products to exclude GMOs, or risk losing much of their customer base by labeling GMOs, which Monsanto admitted many years ago is akin to putting “a skull and crossbones” on the food label. (http://www.naturalnews.com/035578_Monsanto_petition_biotechnology.html)

And since large food conglomerates distribute their offerings nationwide, mandatory labeling in California, the world’s eighth largest economy, will cause sweeping changes across the country as well. This is why it is crucial for Californians get out to the polls on November 6 and vote YES on Prop. 37.

You can learn more about the Yes on Prop. 37 campaign by visiting:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/