Flashback: CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) jumps in bed with Monsanto, claims GMO labeling would be “misleading” to consumers

Thursday, December 14, 2017 by

Remember when Gregory Jaffe, the Director of Biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), openly proclaimed that labeling genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) would be “confusing” and “misleading” to consumers? We sure do. And we just wanted to remind our loyal readers that this Monsanto front organization is still shilling for its corporate masters by pushing untested biotechnology on the public for profit.

In speaking with NutraIngredients-USA.com’s Elaine Watson about this controversial subject back in 2013, Jaffe argued that most people don’t even know what GMOs are, and that if they were labeled it might make it seem as though non-GMO and organic products are somehow superior. Never mind the fact that many people don’t know about GMOs precisely because they aren’t labeled, Jaffe insisted that there is “no reliable evidence” that food ingredients made from genetically-engineered (GE) crops “pose any health risk whatsoever.”

On the other hand, Jaffe believes that there are all sorts of benefits to GMOs and GE ingredients because growing them supposedly requires few chemical inputs. Bt corn, for instance, (as well as Bt cotton) creates its own insecticide right inside the plant that eliminates the need for farmers to apply chemical pesticides and herbicides. But wait: Won’t this harm the people who end up eating such crops and their derivatives? Jaffe says no, at the same time admitting that he relies on industry-funded studies as “proof.”

“The food-safety tests conducted by GE seed producers and others have not found any evidence of harm, including allergic reactions,” Jaffe told Watson, admitting that “few” of these studies were conducted by independent scientists. “Those tests have included short-term, high-dose animal feeding studies of the GE protein (such as the Bt toxins and proteins that confer resistance to herbicides) and determining whether and how quickly the GE protein is broken down in the stomach (which prevents exposure to the rest of the body).”

Jaffe admits that tests claiming GMOs nutrients are no different than non-GMO nutrients failed to use ‘best available methods’

Even in his attempted defense of GMOs, Jaffe made several powerful admissions that show the bulk of “science” on the subject to be industry propaganda. Not only have there been no long-term animal or mammal feeding studies to prove the safety of any GMOs (though they do exist to prove the opposite). But even the short-term ones that do exist rely on flawed methodology – something that Jaffe stated openly to Watson during his interview.

Many independent scientists argue that GMOs are substantially different nutrition-wise from their non-GMO and organic counterparts. But Jaffe says this isn’t the case, at the same time noting that “some of the tests have not used the best available methods.” Still, he says, everyone should simply believe “that current GE crops are safe” because, well, the industry says so.

He further plays the game of cognitive dissonance by making bold statements like “GE crops have been consumed by Americans since 1996 with no apparent ill effects,” only to immediately follow them up with statements like, “however, since there is no monitoring of GE food consumption, some adverse effects, such as food allergies, could go undetected.”

You think? Since 1996, rates of chronic illness have skyrocketed all across the board. People today are fatter, sicker, have less energy, and are more gender-confused than ever – a phenomenon that directly coincides with the rise of GMOs throughout the food supply. Does this serve as solidly conclusive evidence that GMOs are the cause? Not necessarily. But it does invalidate Jaffe’s conclusively false statement that people have been consuming GMOs for several decades now with no ill effects. Society is quite obviously plagued with chronic illness in a way that didn’t exist prior to the advent of GMOs.

Sources for this article include:




comments powered by Disqus