Safety assessment standards for GMOs do not exist! Scientist offers $10 million challenge to Monsanto

November 18, 2015 By: L. J Devon, Staff Writer

(NaturalNews) One of the brave and the bold, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai is the newest scientist to stand up to Monsanto. Dr. Shiva says he will give Monsanto a $10 million building that he owns in Cambridge, Massachusetts if the corporation can disprove his statement that there are "no safety assessment standards" for genetically modified organisms.

Dr. Ayyadurai is a systems biologist who has analyzed the effects of the genetic engineering process on the biochemical pathways that affect plant physiology. He has written extensively on the stark contrast between natural, unadulterated crops and genetically engineered ones. He makes it clear that there are no safety assessment standards for GMOs and he can prove it.

Independent scientist finds stark differences between GM soybeans and natural ones
Now Dr. Ayyadurai is challenging Monsanto to come forward and address the issue. The repercussions of just one untested GMO could spell harm for hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Genetically engineered crops are controversial and in some eyes, morally wrong. Genetically engineering crops is a completely different field of agricultural control, a deviation from traditional plant breeding. Genetic engineering may combine the DNA of a natural plant with genes from a foreign entity like bacteria. How do these unprecedented gene crossovers affect the plant's natural compounds and chemistry? How do these changes affect humans or the ecosystem over time?

In one analysis Dr. Ayyadurai found that genetically modified soybeans can accumulate carcinogenic formaldehyde which also led to the depletion of glutathione, a key antioxidant in natural soybeans. When he tested the non-GM soybean plants, there was no buildup of formaldehyde or depletion of glutathione, proving biochemically that GM-soybeans are an inferior and toxic version of natural soybeans.

GMOs approved based on "requirements" not actual safety standards
Dr. Ayyadurai points out that GMOs are approved around the world based on "requirements," not safety standards. "A standard provides rigorous protocols, processes and procedures," proclaims Dr. Ayyadurai. "For example, what ingredients should be in the soil and what kind of chemical assay should be done to measure whether that GMO is 'materially different' from, or 'substantially equivalent to,' its non-GMO counterpart."

Corporations like Monsanto claim that their GM varieties are "substantially equivalent" to natural seeds and government regulators just assume that they are safe. However, Dr. Ayyadurai's biological analysis comparing GMOs with natural seeds shows that they are not the same. He proves that GMOs are biochemically different, disrupting molecular systems and equilibrium within the plant's physiology. "Objective standards to measure equivalence or difference do not exist," Dr. Ayyadurai insists.

"More importantly, any independent lab should be able to execute those standards, so the results would be reproducible, not just behind closed doors at Monsanto or by a university professor they have funded."

Objective safety assessment standards needed for all GMOs
Dr. Ayyadurai has gone to great lengths to produce such eye-opening findings, accessing 184 institutions in 23 countries to amalgamate the molecular pathway interaction from 6,497 wet lab tests. Dr. Ayyadurai would like to see Monsanto take an objective approach to achieving safety assessment standards. He would like to see an independent study with legal compliance and agreed-on standards where Monsanto's GM varieties are grown alongside non-GM crops in the same conditions.

Dr. Ayyadurai points out that the perception of GMO safety is skewed by a country's economic goals, corporate brainwashing, lobbying and the corruption of academia. The challenge going forward is "to bring the issue forward in a manner that helps the public and scientists to see it clearly" he states.

"If anything, Monsanto has been doing publicity stunts by paying off academics, while spending tens of millions in advertising to brainwash us with beautiful images of African and Indian children frolicking in open fields of flowers, etc., to make us believe that GMOs are safe, while manipulating mainstream media to claim that safety standards for GMOs exist and that the organizations such as the US FDA have determined and assessed the safety of GMOs in the market. This is not true; thus, the challenge." [Emphasis added]

Sources include:

GMWatch.org
Search on GoodGopher.com
GoodGopher.com is the new search engine for truth seekers.
Follow real-time breaking news headlines on
GMOs at FETCH.news
The world of independent media, all in one place.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052020_GMOs_safety_assessment_standards_Monsanto.html#ixzz3sEbg68cI