The Corporate Media Is Now Blaming Anti-GMO Sentiment on Russia [Steemit Exclusive]
A new report is attempting to blame Russia for Americans concerns surrounding genetically engineered foods.
Researchers have reportedly found that Russian news outlets are attempting to create division in the United States by promoting fears of genetically engineered or modified foods. A new report from The Des Moines Register states that researchers discovered Russian propagandists disseminating anti-GMO sentiment and even “click-bait” news stories related to the topic. Sociologist Shawn Dorius and genetics, development, and cell biology associate professor Carolyn Lawrence-Dill drew these conclusions after examining how news outlets report on genetically engineered foods. Dorius and Lawrence-Dill said when they included Russian news outlets Sputnik and RT they found that the two stations accounted for the majority of negative reporting on GMOs.
Although the study has yet to be published or peer-reviewed, the majority of news outlets are reporting the story as fact. Gizmodo and The Des Moines Register both reported on the conclusions. According to Gizmodo, the study found RT accounted for 34 percent of the articles, followed by Sputnik (19 percent), Huffington Post (18 percent), Fox News (15 percent), CNN (8 percent), Breitbart News (6 percent), and MSNBC (<1 percent).
“The extensive nature of Russian news portrayal of GMOs reflects a deep understanding of the psychological antecedents of public distrust in bioengineering and an intent to more firmly link these antecedents in the public consciousness,” Gizmodo reports the researchers write in the study.
The Russian news outlets are being painted as propagandists for reporting on potential health and environmental risks, and the potential for negative consequences on developing nations. The researchers claim the Russians are attempting to create a lack of support for American crops and increased support for Russian agriculture.
"Anti-GMO messaging is a wedge issue not only within the U.S. but also between the U.S. and its European allies, many of whom are deeply skeptical of GMOs," Dorius told The Des Moines Register regarding the study, which he and Lawrence-Dill recently presented at the annual meeting of Iowa State University’s Crop Bioengineering Center. "Stirring the anti-GMO pot would serve a great many of Russia’s political, economic and military objectives.”
“The evidence suggest that the difference between Russian news concerning GMOs and U.S. news on the same topic is not random,” Dorius told Gizmodo.
The study has not been without its critics. Sustainable Pulse, a site dedicated to educating the public about health issues, accuses Dorius and Lawrence-Dill of their own bias. In a recent article, Sustainable Pulse says the two work at a lab partly funded by the U.S. National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), a pro-GMO group which stands to benefit from the growth of genetically engineered products like corn.
“The ISU researchers failed to ask the question as to why the U.S. media does not cover the GMO issue regularly, despite a growing consumer interest in and backlash against the technology,” Sustainable Pulse Director Henry Rowlands said in a statement. “It may seem unusual to some, but on this topic the Russian media has more freedom than the U.S. media.”
It is difficult to comment on the study without access to the report and without peer review. However, right away it seems odd to single out Russian news - a nation where genetically engineered foods are banned - for reporting on the negative aspects of the technology. Moreover, it seems odd to completely ignore the bias in American media and politics regarding genetically engineered foods and the corporations behind the tech. Monsanto Inc and Syngenta, two of the world’s leading biotech corporations, have had a revolving door relationship with the U.S. government for decades. It’s not only the U.S. government, however. There are also concerns about conflicts of interest between scientists and the biotech industry.
In fact, a recent report from researchers with France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research found that nearly half of studies on genetically modified crops were found to have conflicts of interest. The study, Conflicts of Interest in GM Bt Crop Efficacy and Durability Studies, also concluded that GM studies with conflict of interest had an increased likelihood of drawing conclusions which favored genetically modified or engineered foods.
The researchers examined 579 published studies and found that around 40% showed at least one conflict of interest. In these cases the conflict was typically related to someone involved with the study also working as an employee of a GM company or had received funds directly from the company. Given that America is one of the world’s largest consumer of GM foods, it was not surprising to find that our of the 579 studies examined, 404 were American and 83 were Chinese.
“We thought we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we would find so many,” Thomas Guillemaud, director of research at France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) told AFP.
The authors also admit that the study was limited in its scope and that there could be even more conflicts of interest. “We used the addresses of authors to identify their affiliations, only one type of affiliation, that relating to employment, was considered,” the researcher wrote. “However, authors may have affiliations to GM crop companies of other types, such as being members of advisory boards, consultants, or co-holders of patents, and this could also have a significant impact on the outcomes of studies on GM crops.”
Beyond concerns of corruption and conflicts of interest, why would Americans be concerned for their health? After all, haven’t GMO’s repeatedly been found to be safe for consumption? Well, despite assurances from the corporate media this is not entirely true. A recent study, Effect of genetically modified corn on the jejunal mucosa of adult male albino rat, which was published in the journal Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology, showed that rats fed GM Bt corn MON810 suffered serious damage to the surface mucous membranes of the jejunum, an important part of the small intestine. The signs of damage were apparent after only 90 days, according to the researchers.
The study used Monsanto’s MON810: Ajeeb YG, a genetically modified version of Ajeeb, a local species of corn grown in Egypt. The GM version was created by Monsanto for the Egyptian market. The rats who were on the GM corn consumed MON810 corn as 30% of their diet. The control group had the same amount of non-GMO corn. The GM group experienced damage on the finger-like structures within the intestine known as villi. These villi are responsible for absorbing nutrients from food. The researchers found them to be distorted and flattened. They also found signs of inflammation, disturbed mucosal glands, and congested blood vessels.
“Consumption of GM-corn profoundly alters the jejunal histological [microscopic] structure,” the researchers concluded.
Despite this astounding study, there has been little to no mention of its conclusions in the independent or corporate media. The study alone is not hard evidence that the same results will be found in humans, or even necessarily that the genetically modified corn is the sole reason for the damage, but it does absolutely warrant further investigation.
Additionally, the U.S. government seems unwilling to share information with the public regarding how they test and regulate GMOs. In 2015 the Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for failure to adequately respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests related to genetically engineered (GE) crops. This was the fourth time the CFS sued APHIS to force the release of records. The CFS accuses APHIS of failing to respond within a timely manner to at least 29 of their FOIA requests or appeals. The lawsuit is the center’s latest attempt to force APHIS to respond to FOIA requests and to order the agency to “stop its practice of failing to respond to FOIA requests related to GE crops.”
Cristina Stella, staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety, said that APHIS has a history of inadequate regulation of GMO crops. “In the absence of thorough government oversight, public access to information about these crops becomes all the more critical,” Stella said. “This lawsuit is necessary to stop APHIS from continuing to ignore its duty to provide the public with information that affects farmers, communities, and the environment.”
Overwhelming conflict of interest, health issues for rats, and potential corruption. Is it any wonder Americans might have concerns regarding genetically engineered foods? What about those promises of saving Africa? Those claims have been debunked as well. I recommend reading Reuters recent investigation into the failures of Monsanto’s GE crops in Africa’s Burkina Faso for a detailed look at how the products do not deliver what they promise and actually hurt the local population.
So, should you trust genetically engineered foods? I will leave that decision up to you. I hope you do research before drawing a conclusion, but at the end of the day it should be clear that the government should not be involved in removing or forcing food into the diet of free people.
Donate via:
Bitcoin: 16fDdrZvt9XUv7TyboSYtaHfcxMb22Yiew
Ethereum: 0x8d20b442de44C28467b3d66939ff3077F9CfCb24
DASH: XbPpwz1ZvtkTeik1y3wDgrHRJTEst564XH
I am always available for interviews, Please contact [email protected]
I greatly appreciate any support here or on my other social media:
| YouTube | Facebook |
The Russians, the Russians, the Russians, it is always the Russians who are said to be manipulating US citizens; as if the US government, US leaders, and US organizations are not doing the same things. LOL!
All this study shows is that news media is biased. I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya!
This sentence is hilarious and says everything I need to know about it, really.
Dinosaur media giants are like alcoholics, blaming everybody and everything but themselves. The behind the scene funding went to their heads 70 years ago. Thats a tougher habit to kick than heroin if you think about it. So much fud in all aspects of life. Im gunna stick to steemit and bong tokes. Much less harsh on my mellow. I want to be an oblivious Canadian when ww3 jumps into play. If it does. Smh.
So the USDA wishes to trivialize Americans' GMO concerns by downplaying/dismissing them as merely Russian manipulation?
Is Karl Rove a russian?
Media was discovered for letting people know about things they should be aware of but here the channels are trying to control something they really have no access to, Engineered foods may or may not be good for consumption, but more than trying to find ways to keep people in good condition we are waging a war with No source only to sink.
I thought genetically engineered foods can be healthier? Isn't that the objective of their study?
After much research, I have come to the conclusion that GMO’s are indeed bad for consumption.
Why use/eat GMOs when we throw away so much good food annually, and have developed new tech to grow clean of pests and pesticides.
Wonder why cancer is so prevelant nowadays..
Congratulations, you were selected for a random upvote! Follow @exposejourney and upvote this post to increase your chance of being upvoted again!
Read more about @exposejourney here.
There is no problem with those food as long as they are safe for consumption.
There's a lot of (honest) work to be done with regards to GMO crops and their effect on the health of HUMANS. We should not, however generalize all genetically modified crops as harmful...because truth is, there is potential that it can provide solution to feed our growing population..
This is very informative! I didnt know about this until I read this article :
"In fact, a recent report from researchers with France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research found that nearly half of studies on genetically modified crops were found to have conflicts of interest."
.
.thank you!