posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:06 AM
This was not an unexpected development. This same panel had already declared that the GMO crops in question were "safe" ... so when they
immediately reacted to the questionable study as 'fear-mongering' it belied the fact that their own 'acceptance' of GMO was the opposite,
There is a common phenomenon at play here. Big Chem, Big Pharma, and Big Aggro all have a demonstrated propensity to market their "money makers"
aggressively (which is in line with commerce as a goal) despite any resistance from cautionary detractors. It is exactly what happens with every drug
that is "recalled" after slaying thousands of people, with pesticides that are said to be the savior of the world... but can kill those who use it,
and now with foods that serve the purpose of "productivity" but not consumer interest.
The first reaction by Pfizer (who owns Monsanto) to any dissent aimed at their products is to destroy the credibility of the dissenters. It is so
much like thespian politics that I would expect most to see the tactic for what it is.
There have been, for example, numerous reports of GMOs getting into the wild, with diseases and pests suddenly becoming more resilient to the very
pesticides the plants are being biochemically forced to produce themselves (and we get to "consume" that because they proclaim it is "safe."
It appears that between the influence they have in the so-called "political" world; and the strength of a high-powered (and corporately protected)
marketing effort; one may infer that you and I are not part of the equation except as consumers... the rest is theater. And the business model
relies on the actuarial table that drives the prices to insure against any eventual termination of product distribution.
I suspect that the first sign of weakness in "industrialized food" commerce is when rather than proclaim it is safe; they will instead loudly
pronounce that "there is no proof" or that evidence of danger is "inadequate."
Most in the establishment fail to acknowledge that this represents a lack of trust... a lack of trust which was not the result of spontaneous
paranoia; but instead, a lack of trust that comes from the number of deaths and illnesses which point in their direction.
As I have stated before, the very fact that this peer reviewed research was published as it was - then demolished publicly leads me to a little
paranoia of my own: that the exercise was a performance to influence the public by creating a pervasive meme... To deny the viability of GMO is the
stuff of conspiracy lunatics, who by definition, can never be right...
Of course, it is not impossible that GMO food can be designed and implemented in a safe and effective way. But aside from cherry-picked results as
examples of specially supported farmers, the proof is not there.
It's a function of the same old reality... corporations do not want to "make a living" - they want to "make a killing." And in this case.... it
can, does, has, and will kill.... although they will apply more science and "free speech" (money) than anyone else to "protect their investment."